Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Excess Winter Deaths

Dan Jarvis: What plans he has to prevent excess deaths in the winter of 2016-17.

Philip Dunne: Last week, NHS England and Public Health England launched the Stay Well This Winter campaign, which last year reached 98% of the over 65s. This year, for the first time, children in year 3 will be offered free flu vaccine, which means that an additional 600,000 children will be protected this winter, making this the largest children’s flu vaccination programme to date. The Government also provide practical support for those most at risk, including winter fuel payments and the warm home discount scheme. We are also working with the NHS and local authorities to implement our cold weather plan, which is poised to respond to pressures on vital health and social care services this winter.

Dan Jarvis: It is a national disgrace that so many people die needlessly in this country as a result of the cold each year—43,900 people died over the winter of 2014-15. When will somebody in Government accept some responsibility, show some leadership and act decisively to reduce the appalling number of people who die each winter as a result of the cold?

Philip Dunne: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the interest that he takes in this subject. I know that he has a petition currently running in his local area. We do take very seriously the additional pressures placed on the NHS primarily by the winter weather but also by disease prevalence, particularly flu. We started winter planning for this coming winter early in the summer. We have regular updates, which I run, and I report to the Secretary of State on how those plans are going. I can assure him that we are taking as many steps as we can to ensure that we are on top of this issue this winter.

Simon Burns: As part of the plans to reduce and prevent deaths during the winter, what changes have been made with regard to the winter fuel payments for those eligible residents living in the Mediterranean?

Philip Dunne: My right hon. Friend refers to the changes that we introduced under this Government with effect from last year, 2015-16, to reduce the eligibility for those   British citizens living in warmer climates around the Mediterranean, which I know caused him considerable concern. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the change in policy last year reduced the amount paid under the winter fuel payments by 70% compared with the previous year to those people living in the European economic area.

Ian Austin: One way of preventing excess winter deaths would be to ensure that people can go to their local pharmacy for advice, essential medicines and flu vaccines. Plans to cut pharmacy budgets will  hit Dudley hard, with just 1%—one out of Dudley’s 100 pharmacies—getting extra support, compared with 40% in places such as Chesham and Hampshire. Of the thousands of local residents who completed my survey, 97% said that they opposed these cuts. Why will the Minister not listen to the people of Dudley and sort this out?

Philip Dunne: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman included in his survey the fact that the reduction in the establishment payment to each pharmacy will be of  the order of £200 a week from 1 December, and £400 a week from 1 April. How many of those pharmacies  in Dudley will not be able to sustain that reduction in Government subsidy? We use community pharmacies to undertake flu vaccinations for which they will be paid.

Andrew Murrison: What can be done to reduce the effect of winter pressures on the bed state of our acute hospitals and thus reduce the awful phenomenon of bed blocking this winter?

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend knows, we are taking steps, in particular through the sustainable transformation plans, to increase the integration of social care and the health sector. For this winter, we are working hard on delayed transfers of care, to try to ensure that there is more rapid patient flow through our hospitals. That involves closer integration with social care professionals to encourage quicker discharges from the hospitals.

Dennis Skinner: One way of making sure that people do not die in the winter or at any other time is for this Government to concentrate on keeping hospitals open, thereby saving the beds. In that context, why does the Secretary of State refuse to answer the question why hospitals such as Bolsover and another half a dozen in Derbyshire are secretly being closed and Ministers are doing nothing about it?

Philip Dunne: The question is about flu vaccinations and I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to join me in having a flu vaccination, as I believe he is one of the eligible individuals. In relation to Derbyshire, the local health services there are working together to identify the best pattern of provision for a sustainable health service for the future.

John Bercow: The question was about the prevention of excess deaths, so the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was entirely in order in his interpretation of the question. It was not about flu vaccinations, and nobody should mislead the House, however inadvertently.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering general hospital would be better able to deal with winter pressures were it given permission to develop its urgent care hub. The hospital tells me that its application has been with NHS Improvement for nine months now. Will the Minister prod NHS Improvement to get a move on in approving this application?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend held an Adjournment debate recently which I was pleased to respond to. We discussed the status of Kettering general hospital and the foundation trust that runs it. He is correct that it is discussing with NHS Improvement the development of a business case for an urgent care hub, and this is being considered in the context of the wider sustainability and transformation plan. Mr Speaker, I accept your admonishment in respect of my answer to the previous question. Of course, one of the primary solutions to winter excess deaths is the flu vaccination programme.

John Bercow: Or even admonition.

Hospitals in Special Measures

Henry Bellingham: What progress has been made on turning around hospitals in special measures.

Jeremy Hunt: In the past four years, 31 trusts have been put into special measures, more than one in 10 of all NHS trusts. Of those, 15 have now come out and I particularly congratulate the staff of Sherwood Forest, Wye Valley, and Norfolk and Suffolk trusts which have come out of special measures in the past month.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that the sustainability and transformation plan for Norfolk and Waveney is a vital part of the Queen Elizabeth hospital’s future as it successfully moves out of special measures? Although there is overwhelming support for integrating health and social care, will he confirm that there will be full consultation with different patient groups on the STP?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give that assurance. Through my hon. Friend I congratulate the staff of King’s Lynn hospital who have turned things around there. It was a great privilege for me to visit it and see the work that they have done. My hon. Friend is right—the next step is to integrate the work done in acute hospitals with what happens in the community and the social care system. That is why the open and transparent STP process is so important.

Heidi Alexander: I do listen carefully to the Health Secretary and sometimes I end up wondering what planet he is living on. There are as many trusts in special measures now as there are trusts that have come out of special measures. Just because different people in different places are experiencing poor care does not make the overall picture any better. When will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the overall amount of resource going into the system is simply inadequate if he wishes to provide high quality, timely care for all?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the hon. Lady that what is different now is that we have a special measures regime. When Labour was in power, the problems were swept under the carpet and not dealt with. Now they are being dealt with because we want every NHS patient to have confidence that we will not have another Mid Staffs. That is why we are making very good progress. With respect to funding, may I respectfully tell her that had we followed her party’s spending plans, the NHS would have £1.3 billion less this year?

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State will know that with depressing regularity the same hospitals come up on that list that he has just referred to. Sustainability and transformation plans provide the opportunity to address some of the unsustainable elements of local health economies, but only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) says, if the money is there. With the health service facing its tightest financial settlement in its history, these plans are just not deliverable.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman understands health extremely well, both from his ministerial position and from being on the Select Committee. If he looks at the hospitals going into special measures, he will see that we are beginning to succeed in moving hospitals out of special measures, but because we have an independent inspection regime, sometimes other ones go in. That is how it should be. That is what works very well in the education sector and is beginning to work well in driving up standards in health care as well.
To go back to my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), £1.3 billion more  in the NHS this year compared with what would have been put into the NHS if Labour had won the last election means 30,000 nurses, 13,000 doctors or 200,000 hip replacements that we are able to do because of this Government’s funding of the NHS.

Healthcare Spending

Peter Dowd: How much his Department spent on healthcare as a proportion of GDP in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2015-16; and what estimate he has made of the amount that will be spent on healthcare as a proportion of GDP in 2020-21.

Jeremy Hunt: Because of the 2008 financial crisis, all political parties committed to reducing the proportion of GDP spent on health in 2010, but because this Government chose to protect the NHS, the proportion fell from 6.4% to 6.2%, a drop of just 0.2% of GDP.

Peter Dowd: While welcome, that creative response does not answer the question. The fall in GDP spent on health is worrying. To mitigate that fall, when can my constituency expect its share of the Brexit NHS bonus to be injected into its health economy, which would bring in £30 million a year?

Jeremy Hunt: No one would be more delighted than the Health Secretary if we had a Brexit bonus for the NHS, which is why we are getting on with negotiating the best possible Brexit deal for this country, including by invoking article 50 as soon as possible.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for taking time last week to visit the Peterborough City hospital and to praise the magnificent staff there, who are labouring under a £35 million annual private finance initiative millstone. Is the wider context not that we would have a lot more money to spend on front-line care if we did not have to deal with a poisonous legacy from Labour of £64 billion of appalling PFI contracts in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was incredibly impressed with the staff I met at Peterborough hospital—there was incredible commitment to patients and some fantastic work going on in the oncology and renal departments, which I visited. He is right: PFI was a disastrous mistake, saddling hospitals up and down the country with huge amounts of debt, which cannot now be put into front-line patient care. We are doing everything we can to sort that out and not repeat those mistakes.

David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the NHS spends only about £400 million a year on homeopathic medicine and treatments through the 400 doctors who have trained in homeopathy and are members of the faculty. If he wants to reduce antibiotic prescribing, may I suggest that he increases that budget, because there are very good scientific trials now showing that upper respiratory tract infections can be treated using homeopathic medicine? May I write to him about that?

Jeremy Hunt: May I commend my hon. Friend for his great persistence in flying the flag for homeopathic medicine? While we must always follow the science in the way we spend our money on medicines, as I know he agrees, he is right to highlight the threat of antibiotic resistance and the need to be open to every possible way of reducing it.

Meg Hillier: Today I publish my first annual report as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, in which I conclude that there is a sustainability crisis in the funding of the NHS. Surely the Secretary of State will agree—he has made some comments in the media that suggest he is becoming aware of this—that he will need to lobby the Chancellor for a better settlement in the autumn statement. Will he update the House on his negotiations?

Jeremy Hunt: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady but I do not update the House on Government discussions which happen in the run-up to every Budget and autumn statement. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I am not someone who believes that the financial pressures that undoubtedly exist in the NHS and social care system threaten the fundamental model of the NHS. What they remind us all of is that what we need in this country is a strong economy that will allow us to continue funding the NHS and social care systems as we cope with the pressures of an elderly population. That, for me, is the most important challenge—the economic challenge that will allow us to fund the NHS.

David Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under his tenure as the Minister, there has been a real-terms increase in spending on the  NHS in England, unlike in Wales, where, over the last few years, we have seen real-terms cuts under the Labour party?

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks wisely. Thanks to this Government, health spending in England is up by 10.1% in cash terms—4.6% in real terms—since 2010. That is double the cash increase in Scotland and three times the cash increase in Wales. Other parties talk about funding the NHS, but Conservatives say that actions speak louder than words.

Jon Ashworth: But we have seen public health budgets cut and social care budgets cut, and I can now tell the House that the maintenance budgets have been cut. In fact, the backlog of high-risk maintenance facing the NHS has soared by 69% in the past year. In London alone, the high-risk backlog has grown by £338 million; across the country the figure is nearly £5 billion. NHS finances are so stretched that even the most urgent repairs are being left undone. Is this what the Secretary of State meant when he said that he is giving the NHS the money it asked for?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the hon. Gentleman has only been shadow Health Secretary for a while, but may I ask him to cast his mind back to 2010, when the party that wanted to cut the NHS budget was not the Conservative party but Labour? In 2015, his party turned its back on the five year forward view and said it would increase funding not by £8 billion but by just £2.5 billion. It is not enough to found the NHS—you have got to fund it.

John Bercow: Order. These exchanges, not untypically, are taking far too long, and part of the reason for that is that the Secretary of State keeps dilating on the policies of the Labour party. If he does so again, I will sit him down straight away. [Interruption.] Order. There are a lot of colleagues who want to ask questions. We want to hear about Government policy, not that of the Opposition. I have said it, it is clear— please heed it.

Jon Ashworth: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
If everything is so rosy with the NHS’s finances, why did Simon Stevens say just a couple of weeks ago that
“2018-19 will be the most pressurised year for us, where we will actually have negative per-person NHS funding growth in England”—
in other words, that NHS spending per head will be falling? The number of patients waiting longer than four hours in A&Es has increased. The number of days lost to delayed discharge has increased. The number of people waiting more than 62 days to start cancer treatment following referral has increased. Should not the Secretary of State do his job and make sure that next week’s autumn statement delivers the money that the NHS urgently needs?

Jeremy Hunt: Unlike other parties in this House, we have been increasing funding for the NHS. Thanks to that, we are now funding the NHS in England at a 10% higher proportion of GDP than the OECD average, and we are in line with the western European average because of our commitment. These are difficult financial times and there is financial pressure, but this Government have been saying that despite that financial pressure we must make sure that the NHS continues to offer safe, high-quality care—and that is our focus.

Cancer Referral Times

Fiona Mactaggart: What the average time taken is between referral and treatment for patients with (a) ovarian and (b) bowel cancer; and if he will make a statement.

David Mowat: The figures for times between referral and treatment are published against the standard whereby 85% of patients should begin treatment within 62 days of GP referral. The September 2016 figures were 69% for bowel cancer and 75% for ovarian cancer.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is it not the case that only skin cancer and breast cancer referrals are meeting that 62-day target? Is it not unsurprising that the survival rate over 10 years is 78% for breast cancer and 89% for skin cancer, whereas it is 35% for ovarian cancer and 57% for bowel cancer? How does the Minister feel about these excess deaths, and what is he going to do to ensure that people with these cancers are treated in time?

David Mowat: There are eight cancer standards for waiting times and we are consistently meeting seven of them, as we did in September. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the 62-day waiting time has been challenging, and that has an impact on bowel cancer and ovarian cancer. It is also true, though, that one-year, five-year and 10-year survival rates for bowel and ovarian cancer are improving significantly. However, we do need to go further. That is why all 96 recommendations of the Cancer Taskforce have been accepted—we are investing up to £300 million to make that happen—and there is going to be a new test whereby all patients will be either diagnosed or given the all-clear within 28 days.

Simon Hoare: I refer to my entry in the register. Does my hon. Friend agree that research will defeat bowel and gastrointestinal tract cancer, and may I invite him to congratulate Bowel and Cancer Research on its fundraising and support for the cancer research community?

David Mowat: My hon. Friend is quite right: research, in the end, is the way we will beat cancer. This country is ahead of all countries in the world in terms of the number of trials going on, including the US. The voluntary sector, including the charity to which he refers, makes a big impact and I congratulate it.

Tim Farron: I lost my mum to ovarian cancer just a few years ago. She received outstanding treatment at the Rosemere centre in Preston. That is the centre that my constituents need to travel to for radiotherapy for all forms of cancer, but an average round trip to receive treatment takes about two hours. Does the Minister agree that that is not acceptable, and will he support the Rosemere centre in setting up a satellite unit at Kendal hospital, so that people in south Cumbria can get treatment quickly?

David Mowat: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that two hours is a long time. His is a large constituency and I am very happy to look at his specific point and to revert to the House.

Peter Bone: Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I lost my mother to ovarian cancer. One of the reasons is late diagnosis and it has been suggested that cervical smear results should state that it is not a test for ovarian cancer. Will the excellent Minister update the House on his research on that proposal?

David Mowat: My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the big issues with ovarian cancer—we talked about this earlier—is that early diagnosis does not happen as quickly as it should. It is true that the cervical cancer test could raise awareness of ovarian cancer. We are looking at the issue and will revert to the House.

Jim Shannon: Ovarian cancer accounts for some 12% of all new cases, and early diagnosis is critical. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Assemblies to co-ordinate and make available better treatment options, to provide a truly UK-wide NHS?

David Mowat: This is a reserved matter, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that early diagnosis is the single most important thing that we need to do better in order to improve our cancer out-turn rates, and that dialogue continues.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not rather unfair to compare outcome rates for skin cancer, with which I was diagnosed, with those for other types of cancer, because it is easier to diagnose skin cancer at an early stage, which means that the outcomes are usually very good?

Fiona Mactaggart: If it is treated in time.

Michael Fabricant: Yes, because it is easier to diagnose at an early stage—that is the point I am making. Compared with 2010, are we not seeing more than 26,000 extra outpatients a day?

David Mowat: Compared with 2010, we are referring an average of 800,000 more people urgently for cancer treatment. My hon. Friend is also right to say that both skin and lung cancer have more straightforward pathways than ovarian and bowel cancer, but that is not to say that we should not focus on continually improving in relation to the points made by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

Childhood Obesity Strategy

Stuart McDonald: What steps he is taking to implement his Department’s childhood obesity strategy.

Gavin Newlands: What steps he is taking to implement his Department’s childhood obesity strategy.

Nicola Blackwood: The Department is working closely with Public Health England, the national health service, local authorities, schools and other partners as we implement the childhood obesity strategy. We have already  taken firm action, including consulting on the soft drinks industry levy and launching a broad sugar reduction programme.

Stuart McDonald: Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme has comprehensively demonstrated how the former Prime Minister’s obesity strategy was drastically watered down by the time of the final publication. Both Public Health England and the Health Committee agree that control of in-store promotions of unhealthy food is absolutely vital. Why was regulation of such promotions ditched from the Government strategy?

Nicola Blackwood: We have made no secret of the fact that we considered a range of policies before publishing the childhood obesity strategy, which is a world-leading strategy and one of the most ambitious in the world.  It will cut childhood obesity by one fifth in the next 10 years, and I am determined that we do not get lost in a debate about what it could or should have been, but instead get on with implementing it. Our children deserve no less.

Gavin Newlands: A few weeks ago, I hosted a Westminster forum on the implementation of the strategy, at which there was much consternation about why another important recommendation—the creation of a 9 pm watershed to reduce children’s exposure to junk food advertising—was cut. Does the Minister not realise the seriousness of the obesity crisis, and can she explain why that important measure was dumped?

Nicola Blackwood: Current restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink in the UK are among  the toughest in the world, so I am pleased to reassure  the hon. Gentleman and his constituents on that fact.

Mark Harper: May I draw the Minister’s attention to some excellent leadership from the private sector? Lucozade Ribena Suntory, which is based in my constituency, announced last week —rather buried in the news from the United States of America, I am afraid—that it was going to take 50% of sugar out of its soft drinks by reformulating all its new and existing products. That demonstrates really good leadership and is an example to other companies.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s question. He is absolutely right. We very much welcome the actions of not only Lucozade but Tesco in cutting the sugar in their drinks. It is proof that doing so is possible and meets the expectations of many consumers.

Maggie Throup: Recent data from the national childhood measurement programme shows that obesity rates have risen for the second consecutive year. With that in mind, will the Minister outline what further steps she has taken to make the childhood obesity plan for action into a true strategy?

Nicola Blackwood: As I have been saying during this question time, I am absolutely determined to focus on implementing the plan that we have. It is one of the most ambitious in the world, and it will deliver a reduction of a fifth in childhood obesity over the next decade. However, we have been clear that this is not the   final word; it is just the beginning of the conversation. I would welcome contributions from my hon. Friend, who is a dogged campaigner on this issue.

Keith Vaz: Yesterday, on World Diabetes Day, the Prime Minister opened the new headquarters of Diabetes UK and said that the number of cases of diabetes increased by 75% in the last decade. The Minister and I attended the launch of the Food Foundation’s declaration on how to tackle obesity. Which of the 10 measures put forward by the foundation has she decided to accept?

Nicola Blackwood: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, and we are considering the contributions from the Food Foundation, which are very important. He is right about the role that obesity plays in triggering diabetes. That is why we are focusing on preventing type 2 diabetes through the world’s first national diabetes prevention programme, which aims to deliver at-scale, evidence-based behavioural change to support people to reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Philip Davies: May I urge the Minister, in tackling childhood obesity, not to go down the line of nanny-state proposal after nanny-state proposal, but instead to look at Active Movement, which is in operation in a number of areas around the country? It builds exercise into the average day of children in schools, and it is already making a great difference to childhood obesity levels.

Nicola Blackwood: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for a key plank of the childhood obesity strategy, which is helping all children to enjoy an hour of physical activity every day and which will include physical movement as well as specific physical education.

Sharon Hodgson: Another target that “Dispatches” uncovered was to be scrapped was the target to halve childhood obesity by 2026. This was compounded by recent national childhood measurement data showing that obesity is on the rise and that obesity rates are more than double in deprived areas compared with more affluent ones. Instead of squandering this opportunity, the Government should be pushing ahead with a comprehensive and preventive strategy. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why this significant target was dropped from the Government’s plans to tackle childhood obesity?

Nicola Blackwood: The hon. Lady is right to say that the childhood obesity strategy is one of our key priorities for tackling health inequalities in the UK. Obesity prevalence for children living in the most deprived areas is double that for those living in the least deprived areas, and the gap continues to widen. That is exactly why we will press ahead with the plan, but, as she has said, this is just the beginning of the conversation and we will continue to fight obesity as a government priority.

Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Angela Eagle: What discussions he has had with local government representatives on the sustainability and transformation plan process.

David Mowat: The STPs are a collaborative local effort, involving providers and commissioners coming together with other stakeholders to produce place-based plans. The vast majority of plans have been developed jointly between the health sector and local authorities. Several plans have been led by local government.

Angela Eagle: Yesterday, the King’s Fund rightly characterised what is euphemistically called the sustainability and transformation project as being planned in secret, behind the backs of patients and the public. In Merseyside and Wirral, we know from leaks that the Government are going to cut £1 billion from our local national health service, which, despite rising demand, will close hospitals, downgrade many accident and emergency departments and possibly leave the whole of Wirral without an acute hospital. Will the Minister now come clean and publish these plans in full, and will he undertake to visit Wirral so that my constituents in Wallasey  can come and have a word with him about his plans for their NHS?

David Mowat: To be clear, every single STP will be published by Christmas. About 12 have been published so far, and the Cheshire and Merseyside STP will be published tomorrow. When the hon. Lady has access to it, she will see that some of the statements she is making are just scaremongering. She mentioned the King’s Fund, so let me quote it:
“The King’s Fund continues to believe that STPs offer the best hope of delivering long term improvements to health and care services.”
That is what the King’s Fund says.

Peter Heaton-Jones: Will the Minister ensure that NHS managers undertaking the STP process affecting North Devon are fully aware of my constituents’ concerns, especially in relation to our geographical isolation? In particular, will he ensure that they are aware of their concerns in Ilfracombe, which has suffered from decades of health inequality because of its location?

David Mowat: It is vital that every STP engages with all stakeholders, and that includes North Devon. The public and, indeed, MPs should engage in the process as critical friends to try to make these plans better.

Norman Lamb: Despite reassurances, there are still concerns that mental health remains peripheral to STPs in many areas. Will the Minister provide some further reassurance, because unless the Government absolutely insist that mental health is central and that resources are focused on prevention in mental health, these plans will simply fail?

David Mowat: I give the right hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that better mental health is a fundamental part of what the STPs are trying to achieve, as are better cancer outcomes and better integration of adult social care. If an STP does not include those things, it will have to continue to evolve until it does.

Richard Fuller: The mayor of Bedford, Dave Hodgson, and I have a common approach to the STP in Bedford—it is ably led by Pauline Philip, the  chief executive officer of Luton and Dunstable hospital—but he is frustrated that he is not being involved and that his voice is not being heard in the process. Will my hon. Friend ensure, when he reviews all the STPs, that he gets a guarantee in every single case that the local authorities have bought into the plan, and, if not, that they will not proceed?

David Mowat: I give my hon. Friend the categorical assurance that if local authorities and the NHS managers doing the planning work have not engaged properly, the plan will not be considered to be complete. That does not mean that every local authority has a veto on  its STP.

Justin Madders: Following on from that point, the Minister has previously said that STPs will
“not go ahead if councils believe they have been marginalised.”
Given that seven councils in London and west Yorkshire have already rejected their STPs and, as we have heard, that council leaders from both main parties have expressed concerns about the Cheshire and Merseyside proposals, does the Minister have a plan B when it comes to rejected STPs?

David Mowat: In a previous answer, I made the point that every local authority should be engaging with its STP, and the NHS must ensure that that happens. That is not the same as saying that every local authority has a veto on the STP, which was the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Delayed Hospital Discharges

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on the level of delayed discharges from hospital.

David Mowat: The Government are giving councils access to a further £3.5 billion for social care by 2019, which will mean a real-terms increase over the lifetime of this Parliament. The causes of delayed transfers of care are complex and, frankly, vary considerably by local council.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Care Quality Commission has commented that social care is on the verge of collapse. The Government have had six years of warnings in relation to this matter, yet they have cut £4 billion from the social care budget. Will the Secretary of State for Health be talking to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the £4 billion is replaced in the autumn statement?

David Mowat: The system is under pressure but we also know that the best way to achieve the best results is faster integration, and not just money. I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. There is a massive disparity between councils. The best 10% of councils have 20 times fewer delayed transfers of care than the worst 10%. It is not just about money, as the budgets are not 20 times different. Indeed, many councils have been able to increase their budgets, including Middlesbrough.

Sarah Wollaston: The Minister is aware of the Health Committee’s concerns about the effect of underfunding of social care on the NHS. He may also be aware that there are particular concerns  in my area and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) because of the recent Care Quality Commission rating of Mears Care as inadequate. Coming on the back of community hospital closures in Paignton, that gives grave concern to all our constituents. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay to discuss this further?

David Mowat: My hon. Friend is right that there was an inadequate CQC rating for that care home. It is therefore right that the care home must either improve or go out of business. That is what the CQC regulatory environment will ensure. She makes a point about the issue with the hospital in Paignton; that is out for consultation at the moment, and I would expect the local care situation to be part of that consultation.

Barbara Keeley: The National Audit Office report “Discharging older patients from hospital” said that
“there are…far too many older people in hospitals who do not need to be there”.
Delayed discharges reached a record level in September. The Minister says that this is complex, but I can tell him that the main drivers for that increase were patients waiting for home care or for a nursing home place; those issues are both related to the underfunding of social care. Does he agree with NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens that any extra funding from Government should go into social care?

David Mowat: As I said earlier, we accept that the system is under pressure, but we also make the point that there is a massive disparity between different councils. Some 13% of local authorities cause 50% of the delayed transfers of care—DETOCs. The real point is that those local authorities that go furthest and fastest in integration, with trusted assessors, early discharge planning and discharge to assess, have the most success.

Hugo Swire: Northern, Eastern and Western Devon clinical commissioning group is already consulting on the possible closure of community beds across Devon. The social care budget in East Devon, an area of elderly people, and the rest of the county is already under severe pressure. That pressure will inevitably increase if community beds are closed. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to putting those points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the run-up to the autumn statement?

David Mowat: The Secretary of State has already made the point that we do not give a running commentary on the status of discussions with the Treasury, but I accept my right hon. Friend’s point about his local issue.

NHS England: A&E

Alan Brown: What assessment he has made of the performance of NHS England in meeting A&E waiting time targets in the last 12 months.

Philip Dunne: Last year, the NHS in England handled 2.4 million more A&E attendances than when this Government took office. There has been a 4.6% increase in attendances, compared with only a 1.2% increase in Scotland. Despite that significant increase in demand the NHS has coped well, with nine out of 10 patients still seen within four hours.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the truth is it must do better and needs more support. In September, only 86% of patients were treated within the four hour target time in English A&E departments; by contrast, in Scotland it was 95%, for a record consecutive period. Given that winter is coming, what will the Minister do to ensure the service copes?

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman should know that, according to figures for the most recent month available, 90.6% of A&E attendances were seen within the four hours. We are aware that the system remains under pressure, and are putting efforts into identifying steps through the A&E improvement plan, with five specific measures to improve front-door streaming, back-door discharge and patient pathways through hospitals to improve that performance.

Anne Marie Morris: Rural areas have high demand for primary and social care that increases the pressure on A&E if it is not met. Given the relationship between primary, secondary, A&E and social care, does the Minister also measure waiting times in primary and social care in the same way? That would give him a fuller picture of the demands on the system that need addressing.

Philip Dunne: The short answer is that at present we do not record waiting times in the same way. Tests are being undertaken in relation to waiting times for GPs, but at this point I do not have access to the data.

Edward Leigh: As we are unlikely to reach my question on the Order Paper, perhaps the Minister could now direct his attention to the east midlands where we have problems with A&E, particularly for people in rural areas. For those  of us who rely completely on the NHS, this is obviously a matter of vital concern. I just wonder whether we should not have an honest debate about this and recognise that we have an ageing population. Our A&E times are stressed and we may have to either tax people more or even think the unthinkable and charge people for— See, it is unthinkable, but we have to concentrate on the essentials. Let us have an honest debate about the finances of the NHS.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend will be aware that the sustainability and transformation plans discussed earlier today are designed to bring closer integration of health providers and commissioners within a health system area, such as the east midlands. The ambition is to integrate better health and social care provision to avoid some of the challenges he identifies.

Philippa Whitford: The A&E target the Minister mentions is actually a measure of the entire acute system. Important in that is the flow  of patients from admission through treatment to discharge. In Scotland, delayed discharges have fallen 9% since health and social care were integrated. In England, they have gone up 30%. Does the Minister accept the need to fund social care properly to relieve the back pressure on A&E?

Philip Dunne: I listen with great interest to what the hon. Lady says, but I gently remind her of two things. First, as the result of the generosity of the Barnett formula, Scotland receives £1,500 per capita more to spend on health than England. Secondly, the Auditor General for Scotland recently reported that NHS Scotland was failing to meet seven out of eight key targets, including waiting times for A&E.

Philippa Whitford: I wonder how many targets are being missed in England. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine report demonstrates that in the 176 emergency departments in England there are only enough consultants to provide the cover of one for 16 hours a day. On top of that, rota gaps among junior doctors are causing safety concerns. What exactly is the Minister going to do this winter and will he agree to lift his ban on locum agency staff to help to keep A&Es functioning?

Philip Dunne: We recognise that there have been pressures on emergency departments for some years, which is why we have put particular effort into recruiting more consultants. There are, I believe, 50% more consultants working in emergency departments in England than there were in 2010, and 25% more doctors.

Maternity Care

Henry Smith: What steps his Department is taking to improve the safety of maternity care.

Jeremy Hunt: Last month, I launched the safer maternity care action plan, which is part of our ambition to halve the rates of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and brain injuries by 2030.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. In 2001, the then Labour Government closed the maternity unit at Crawley hospital. Longer journeys to East Surrey hospital have been a safety concern. Will the Department look at reintroducing midwife services to Crawley hospital and GP surgeries in Crawley?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to talk further with my hon. Friend. He knows that this is a local matter. It was, I think, looked into in 2014, but if the pattern of demand changes it should be kept under review.

Local Authority Social Care Budgets

Jeff Smith: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to local authority social care budgets on the demand for health services.

David Mowat: Social care plays a vital role in keeping people healthy and independent, which is why the   Government are making a further £3.5 billion available by 2020—a real-terms increase over the lifetime of this Parliament. There is an overlap between care and health, which is why faster integration is our major priority.

Jeff Smith: The Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor, Stephen Dorrell, has said this month that we are increasingly using our acute hospitals as “unbelievably expensive care homes”, and he described this as a “grotesque waste of resources”. Is it not the case that the Government have simply outsourced the hardest decisions on social care cuts to the hardest-pressed local authorities to ensure that councils get the blame, not the Government, and that ultimately it is the NHS that suffers?

David Mowat: As I said earlier, we agree that the social care system is under pressure, but we also make the point that there is a massive disparity between the performance of different parts of that system. For example, Manchester, the hon. Gentleman’s own patch, has a DTOC performance seven to eight times worse, per 10,000 patients, than Salford, in spite of the 15% increase in its budget this year.

Caroline Ansell: A small-scale study by Professor Peter Fleming has recently made the press. It links cardiorespiratory compromise in new-borns with sleeping in car seats for prolonged periods—over 30 minutes. Given that for many Eastbourne babies, one of their first life experiences is the journey home from Hastings hospital, which is longer than 30 minutes, will the Department look at these findings, consider whether further study is required and offer reassurance to parents rightly concerned by the research?

David Mowat: This is a very difficult case. The Department will look at the evidence and revert to the House.

John Bercow: That was very dextrous handling of a very broad interpretation of the question on the Order Paper, but I hope that honour has been served.

Helen Jones: The Cheshire and Merseyside sustainability and transformation plan relies heavily on more care in the community. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this will not work while local authority social care is being cut to the bone, because it will merely send people back to their own homes, where their health will deteriorate?

David Mowat: The Cheshire and Merseyside STP will be published tomorrow, and we will all know better then what it says. The hon. Lady is right that there is an interaction between social care and health, but she and I, as Warrington MPs, must both be pleased that Warrington is one of the top performers in terms of delayed transfers of care, and on that we should congratulate our local authorities.

NHS England: A&E

Jason McCartney: What discussions he has had with NHS England on the reconfiguration of A&E units.

Philip Dunne: It was this Government who first introduced key tests for service change, giving local people a say. We need an NHS that is ready for the future, and sustainability and transformation plans will help to ensure the best standards of care, with local doctors, hospitals and councils working together in conjunction with local communities for the first time. No decisions about service reconfigurations, including A&E units, will be made without local consultation, as is currently the case.

Jason McCartney: How can it be right that the disastrous private finance initiative deal at Calderdale is dictating that Huddersfield royal infirmary be bulldozed, leaving Huddersfield as the largest town in England without an A&E unit?

Philip Dunne: I am familiar with my hon. Friend’s concern for the hospital in Huddersfield. We have discussed it previously. Calderdale royal hospital was an early PFI and is halfway to paying off its liabilities. The present proposal, put forward by the local CCGs, for moving to a full outlined business case would involve an A&E trauma centre on a single site, but there would continue to be emergency care in Huddersfield 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it would maintain the capability to assess and initiate treatment of all patients, if it were to proceed.

John Bercow: Hoping for an un-lawyerlike brevity, I call Mr Alistair Carmichael.

Leaving the EU: Nurse Recruitment

Alistair Carmichael: What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of the vote for the UK to leave the EU on future recruitment of nurses to the NHS.

Philip Dunne: The NHS currently employs 21,030 nurses from the EU—6.6% of the total number of nurses in the workforce—while a further almost 90,000 EU citizens work in the social care sector across the UK. They all do a fantastic job, and we have been clear that we want them to be able to stay post-Brexit.

Alistair Carmichael: What is the Minister going to do to achieve that then?

Philip Dunne: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussions with Cabinet colleagues handling the negotiations, and I am sure that his messages are being well heard across Government.

John Bercow: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is in line for an award.

Topical Questions

Paul Blomfield: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I am pleased to report to the House something I was not sure I would ever be able to say: last week, the   British Medical Association called off its industrial action and committed to working with the Government on the implementation of new contracts for junior doctors. This will make a significant contribution to our commitment to a safer, seven-day NHS, and the Government will work constructively with junior doctors to address their concerns, because they are a vital and valued part of our NHS.

Paul Blomfield: The South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw STP sets out some very positive ambitions, but it warns that there will be a financial shortfall for health and social care services in our area of £571 million by 2020-21. Those ambitions are unachievable unless the Government address the shortfall. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?

Jeremy Hunt: We are working very carefully with all STP areas to make sure that their plans are balanced so that we can live within the extra funding we are putting into the NHS—an extra £10 billion—by 2020-21. We will look at that plan and do everything we can to help to make sure that it works out.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Dr Ollie O’Toole of the Kirby Road surgery in Dunstable for representing all of the very best in a family doctor? Will he also explain what more we can do to encourage people to go into general practice rather than working for locum companies, which so many seem to want to do at the moment?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that, and I would like to pass on my congratulations to Dr O’Toole, who obviously does a fantastic job for my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are investing significantly in general practice, with a 14% increase in real terms over this Parliament and our ambition to provide an extra 5,000 doctors working in general practice. This will mean that the need for locums will become much less and we can have much more continuity of care for patients.

Julie Cooper: The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware that Capita has wreaked havoc in GP surgeries across the land, placing extra pressures on already overstretched NHS staff, compromising patient safety and breaching confidentiality. Last week, I met a group of practice managers who told me that some patient records have been missing for months, while others have turned up apparently half-eaten by mice. Given that this contract was introduced to save the NHS money, will the Minister tell us how much it is costing to rectify the mess and what steps she is taking to compensate GPs for the expenses they have incurred as a result of ill-conceived and poorly implemented contracts?

Nicola Blackwood: The hon. Lady is right that the current delivery of this contract by Capita is unacceptable. I have met NHS England and Capita regularly to make sure that rectification plans are in place. We are assured that these steps are now in place and that the programme will improve.

Tom Pursglove: Across north Northamptonshire there is an enormous appetite for the new urgent care hub to be built at the site of  Kettering general hospital, relieving pressure on A&E and improving services for patients. Will the Minister update us on progress?

Philip Dunne: As I said to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), we are aware that Kettering hospital has put forward a proposal. The outline business case is due to be discussed with NHS England in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are looking at an interim solution for relieving pressure on A&E services in the area.

Virendra Sharma: Diabetes is a big problem in my constituency, and the number of unnecessary lower limb amputations due to diabetes is on the rise. Will the Minister ask clinical commissioning groups to provide fully staffed community podiatry foot protection services to avoid amputations, keep people in work and make huge cost savings?

Nicola Blackwood: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that diabetes is a major health risk in the UK. That is why we have rolled out the first ever NHS diabetes prevention programme this year on 27 sites, covering nearly half of England and referring nearly 10,000 people. Next year, the second wave of the programme will reach a further 25% of the English population. The aim is for the NDPP to be rolled out across the whole of England by 2020 to support 100,000 people at risk of diabetes each year.

Bob Neill: Proper integration of adult social care and health services requires co-operation on both sides. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is really not acceptable that in a borough such as Bromley, the CCG top-sliced only 3.5% of its funding to go into the better care fund—nowhere near enough to make a difference to hard-pressed local services?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up that issue. Everyone recognises, on both sides of the House, that the health and social care sectors need to work together. That happens very well in some parts of the country, but not in others. I think all hon. Members have a job to make sure that people behave responsibly in their constituencies.

Chris Law: Both Public Health England and Food Standards Scotland support restricted advertising of junk food to children, yet this was entirely omitted from the Government’s completely underwhelming obesity strategy. Given that we clearly cannot rely on the UK Government to take this forward, will the Secretary of State support the devolution of broadcasting powers to allow the Scottish Government to tackle the obesity crisis and its devastating impact on society?

Nicola Blackwood: The obesity plan is one of the most ambitious in the world. It will reduce obesity by a fifth by cutting the amount of sugar in our food, helping all children to engage in an hour of physical activity a day, and making it easier for families to make  healthy choices. We already have some of the toughest advertising rules in the world, and we have consulted Scotland closely on these arrangements.

Henry Smith: The anti-coagulation service at the Furnace Green general practice was recently moved to Crawley hospital, which has caused concern to some local patients. Will a member of the health ministerial team agree to meet me to discuss that further?

David Mowat: I understand that the clinical commissioning group has provided an alternative which is no more than two miles away, but I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

Stuart Donaldson: Climbing obesity rates are expected to lead to increases in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and the need for joint replacements, which will put even greater pressure on the NHS. Given such threats to health, does the Secretary of State really think that now is the time for timidity and sucking up to business?

Nicola Blackwood: As I have made absolutely clear today, I am determined not to allow the House to get lost in a debate about what the plan could or should have been. Our children deserve more from us. We should not politicise this debate; we should get on with delivering the plan that we have before becoming involved in a lengthier conversation about what a long-term obesity programme should be.

Antoinette Sandbach: General practices in Winsford are being underfunded by 3.6% in terms of the formula that should apply to them because of the slow rate of change, while nearby Merseyside practices are being overfunded by 5%. That is resulting in a £30 million loss to my local surgeries. Will the Minister commit himself to looking into it and introducing a quicker rate of change, so that local residents can benefit from the funds that they should be receiving?

David Mowat: In 2016, the Government implemented a new formula for allocation, which means a better deal for underfunded areas such as Winsford. As my hon. Friend has noted, however, the extra money is being phased in over a few years to prevent distortions. This year her local CCG received an increase of more than 3%, and the funding will continue to catch up as a result of the new mechanism.

George Howarth: The Minister rightly said that greater integration between health and social care was a prize worth striving for. Why do local government leaders on Merseyside feel that they have been excluded from discussions about the STP process? If we are to make progress, they need to be part of the solution.

David Mowat: As I said earlier, local engagement with all stakeholders is necessary. The STP for Cheshire and Merseyside will be published tomorrow. It is essential  for local authorities to engage in it as it evolves, and it is essential for MPs to engage in it—as critical friends—to make the plans better.

Andrew Bridgen: According to a report published recently by the British Lung Foundation, 1.2 million people are suffering from and have been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, while many more sufferers have not been diagnosed. Will the Minister support the establishment of an independent respiratory taskforce to help diagnosis and improve lung health for everyone?

Nicola Blackwood: I know that the British Lung Foundation has called for a taskforce on lung health. Given that a million people have been diagnosed with COPD and a further million remain undiagnosed, the Government and the NHS are keen to work with the NHS and the voluntary sector to find practical and innovative ways of improving outcomes for patients with respiratory disease, and I will consider my hon. Friend’s proposal as part of that process.

Luciana Berger: The number of nurses working in mental health has fallen by 15% since 2010, from 45,384 to 38,774. Why is that, and does the Secretary of State believe that it will achieve real parity of esteem for mental health in our country?

Jeremy Hunt: What I can tell the hon. Lady—who, I know, rightly campaigns hard on mental health—is that we are treating 1,400 more people in our mental health services every day than we did in 2010, and we will be treating a million more people every year when we have implemented the taskforce report. We are investing more, and we are making good progress.

Matt Warman: Shared care allows GPs to provide complex prescriptions for drugs such as methotrexate, but in my constituency the Beacon surgery recently withdrew from those arrangements. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Department will support not only patients who now face potentially longer round trips, but GPs themselves, so that they can continue to provide those vital services?

David Mowat: The arrangement my hon. Friend describes is a special relationship whereby a GP agrees with a hospital consultant to prescribe complex drugs which are normally only hospital-prescribed. This is not part of the standard GP contract and they cannot be required to provide this service. On the specific issue raised, we have asked NHS England to determine whether there are alternatives and I will revert to my hon. Friend on that.

John Cryer: Is the Minister satisfied that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence procedures for the approval of anti-cancer drugs are sufficiently speedy, because the  waiting times for approvals can be months or even years, and there is a widespread feeling that that is too slow?

Jeremy Hunt: We have tried to speed this up with the cancer drugs fund, which helped 84,000 people in the last Parliament, but we always keep the NICE procedures under review and I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says.

Bob Blackman: We recently  had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on the Government’s tobacco control strategy. When will they publish the new strategy, which was promised for publication this summer?

Nicola Blackwood: The UK is a world leader in tobacco control and we have a proven record in reducing the harm caused by tobacco. We should be proud of the fact that smoking rates among adults and young people are at the lowest ever level, but my hon. Friend is right to push for the tobacco control plan because there is unacceptable variation. We are working on developing that plan, which we will be publishing shortly.

Danny Kinahan: In Northern Ireland in 2014-15, 870 deaths were due to the cold weather. Will the Minister engage with other Ministers to ensure that fuel poverty is looked at by all Departments, so that the pensioners who raised this in Parliament do not suffer from the health matters that are killing them off?

Philip Dunne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. We do of course have the cold weather payment system in force across the UK, and later this week I will attend a meeting with other Government Ministers to look at winter preparedness across the board.

Kevin Foster: The Minister will be aware of the concerns in Torbay about the impact on accident and emergency services from the potential loss of the minor injuries unit at Paignton hospital. Does he agree that it is vital that MIU services are kept within Paignton given that it is the second biggest town in Devon?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend is aware that a consultation is going on regarding services in south Devon. The point he makes has been well made and I am sure it will be taken into account by the clinical commissioning group and the local community hospital trust.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry but we must move on. Demand at Question Time tends to exceed supply. I recognise the intense interest in these matters, but it would help if questions and answers were shorter—or maybe the Government want to propose a larger allocation of time for Health questions? But there is much interest and only limited time in which to accommodate it.



PRISON OFFICERS ASSOCIATION: PROTEST ACTION

Richard Burgon: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on today’s protest action by the Prison Officers Association.

Elizabeth Truss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the chance to update the House on this important issue.
Prison officers do a tough and difficult job, and I have been clear that we need to make our prisons safer and more secure. I have announced that an extra 2,500 officers will be recruited to strengthen the frontline. We are already putting in place new measures to tackle the use of dangerous psychoactive drugs and improve security across the estate.
I met the Prison Officers Association on 2 November. Over the past two weeks, my team has been holding talks with the POA on a range of measures to improve safety. Those talks were due to continue this morning. Instead, the POA failed to respond to our proposals and called this unlawful action, without giving any notice. The chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr, spoke to POA chairman Mike Rolfe this morning reiterating our desire to continue talks today. That offer was refused. The union’s position is unnecessary and unlawful, and it will make the situation in our prisons more dangerous. We are taking the necessary legal steps to end this unlawful industrial action.
The Government are absolutely committed to giving prison officers and governors the support that they need to do their job and to keep them safe from harm. In addition to recruiting an extra 2,500 prison officers, we are rolling out body-worn cameras across the prison estate and we have launched a £3 million major crimes taskforce to crack down on gangs and organised crime. In September we rolled out new tests for dangerous psychoactive substances and we have trained 300 dogs to detect these new drugs. We have set up a daily rapid response unit, led by the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to ensure that governors and staff have all the support that they need.
Taken together, these measures will have a real and swift impact on the security and stability of prisons while we recruit additional front-line staff. I urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to join me in condemning this unlawful action, and in calling on the POA to withdraw this action and get back to the negotiating table.

Richard Burgon: The Justice Secretary has been told repeatedly that the prisons she presides over are dangerous and volatile. Assaults on staff and prisoners are rising. In the 12 months to June 2016, there were nearly 6,000 assaults on staff, 24,000 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, and 105 self-inflicted deaths of prisoners. There are 6,000 fewer officers on the frontline than in 2010. Staff shortages are stark and morale is low, and officers and   prisoners alike feel unsafe. The Government’s White Paper does not provide the rapid action that our prison system so urgently needs and has so long asked for.
The Secretary of State has consistently failed to acknowledge is that this is a service in crisis. Today’s protest action by prison officers is the clearest sign yet of the fact that this is a crisis over which she and her ministerial colleagues have lost control. Will she confirm when she last spoke personally to representatives of the POA and when she will talk to them next? What solution was put to the POA to address urgently its concerns about safety? Does she accept that the increase in violence on staff and between prisoners is a direct result of her Government’s staff cuts? Does she regret her Government’s decision to cut 6,000 prison staff, and how does she intend to increase the number of prison officers now, not in two years’ time? This is a Secretary of State in denial. She has let down our judiciary, lost the confidence of our prison staff and failed to take effective action in the face of a crisis of violence in our prisons.

Elizabeth Truss: It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman refuses to condemn illegal industrial action that is putting our hard-working front-line prison staff at risk—it is completely irresponsible. I have made it absolutely clear ever since I was appointed to this role that safety is my No. 1 priority. That is why we are rolling out new tests for psychoactive substances and making sure that all staff have body-worn cameras. It is also why we are already recruiting new staff, for which we have announced a £100 million increase in the prison budget. The hon. Gentleman needs to act more responsibly. He needs to work with me, as does the Prison Officers Association, to make sure that our prisons are safer. Sanctioning illegal industrial action in our prison estate is actively putting people at risk of harm, and I ask him to reconsider his disgraceful stance.

Richard Fuller: Following the recent disturbances at Bedford prison, I put on record my thanks to the prison officers and members of the Tornado force for restoring order so rapidly and carefully, and to the prisons Minister for keeping me in touch with affairs throughout the evening a week last Sunday. It is a great shame that prison officers have been led into unlawful action today, but does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not recognise that in addition to adding staff, she needs to look urgently at the retention of existing staff and the reasons for their disquiet? Please will she do so as part of her ongoing review?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the importance  of retaining our valuable officers with experience in  our prisons, which is why we have given governors extra freedoms to take the measures they need to take, and why we need to increase safety across our prison estate. I have made that a clear priority, and we have already put in place a number of measures to improve security and safety. Unlawful industrial action is not the way to improve the situation. We had been in discussions with the POA—I met its representatives on 2 November—but it has walked away from talks that were designed to deal with some of the issues. I urge the POA to come back to the negotiating table, to stop putting its members at risk and to work with us to make our prisons safer.

Richard Arkless: Given my experience on the Justice Committee over the past year, it is abundantly clear to me that this is a toxic mix of policy and resource. The policy is that we are sending far too many people to jail on shorter sentences, and the resource problem is that we have an ever-increasing ratio of inmates to prison officers. Officers are utterly demoralised. On the ground, inmates are being kept in cells for 23 hours a day because there are not enough resources in the prison estate to ensure that they have meaningful and purposeful work. Everybody agrees that meaningful and purposeful work is the way to better rehabilitation. Does the Lord Chancellor recognise the huge resource issue? If so, how many prison officers do we need to recruit to get to a 2,500 net increase, bearing in mind the retention problems that have been adequately articulated in the Chamber today? Is she inclined to look at reducing the number of young people who are sent to prison for short sentences which, quite frankly, do not achieve anything?

Elizabeth Truss: We are recruiting 2,500 officers across the estate, but we are also taking immediate action to stabilise the position and ensure that security measures are in place. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question about young people, I want more early intervention to prevent those people from going into custody in the first place by dealing with issues such as mental health and substance abuse at an early stage. That is what we will be announcing shortly.

Bob Neill: There can never be any excuse for unlawful industrial action, which helps no one, so I join the Secretary of State in her condemnation. Perhaps she will update us about the form and timeframe of the legal action.
Does the Secretary of State concede that underlying issues of staff morale and a lack of retention, especially of experienced officers, have been highlighted repeatedly? Did the discussions that the POA unfortunately walked away from include suggestions from the management of NOMS about to how to improve retention? When will we bring forward a comprehensive scheme to deal with retention and the loss of experienced officers?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Justice Committee, for joining me in condemning today’s illegal industrial action. I again urge the Labour Front-Bench team to join me in that condemnation. The Chairman is right about safety in our prisons. I can confirm that several issues were on the table in the discussions with the POA and that offers have been put forward. That is why I want the POA to come back to the negotiating table, instead of indulging in illegal industrial action, so that we can work together to make our prisons safer

Mary Creagh: Prison officers in my constituency do an amazing job with the most dangerous and difficult offenders at Wakefield prison and New Hall women’s prison. Action such as today’s is, thankfully, incredibly rare, but does the Secretary of State have any regrets that her Government and the previous Government have presided over a slow-burning crisis that has culminated in today’s action, riots in Bedford prison, an increase in violence and self-harm, and escapes from Pentonville?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady is correct to say that prison officers do a fantastic job. I want us to recruit more of them so that we strengthen the frontline and enable them to spend their time reforming offenders. That is what we all want, and it is exactly what our plans in the White Paper are about. We are facing an issue at the moment, and that is why we have taken additional measures to deal with psychoactive substances, which have been a serious problem, and with serious and organised crime. We are offering direct support to governors in prisons to make sure that we stabilise the situation in the short term.

Maria Caulfield: I am a frequent visitor to HMP Lewes in my constituency, so I know what a fantastic job the prison officers there do in difficult circumstances. One problem they are facing is a rise in the number of sexual offenders in prison, either on remand or serving a prison sentence, which makes life difficult for prison officers to manage. Will the Secretary of State update us on what work is being done to help prisons such as HMP Lewes?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The prisons Minister will be visiting HMP Lewes on Friday, when he will follow up some of the issues she raises.

Karl Turner: We have nearly 7,000 fewer prison officers in our prisons than in 2010. The Secretary of State is now desperately trying to recruit 2,500 prison officers, yet she comes to that Dispatch Box and attacks prison officers for taking desperate measures because their safety is at risk every day. How does she think that will help with recruitment?

Elizabeth Truss: I support prison officers, who do a fantastic job. The people I am attacking are those in the Prison Officers Association who have called this illegal action, despite the fact that we were in talks with them and there was an offer on the table, which has not been responded to. I wholeheartedly support the good work of prison officers across the country, and I want  them to benefit from the improvements we are making on the frontline and to safety. We are launching a new apprenticeship programme to recruit more people, and we have a new programme encouraging the brightest and best graduates to become prison officers. Of course these things will take time, but I have also talked today about the measures we are taking in the short term to stabilise the situation in our prisons.

Andrew Selous: Testing for psychoactive substances has the potential to be a game changer, so has there been an increase in the number of charges for possession? Has the message finally got through to people that if they take Spice, we will know they are doing it, they will be charged and they will take the consequences?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend clearly has much experience in this area and what he says is absolutely right. The prisons and probation ombudsman described psychoactive substances a game changer in our prison estate, and they are one of the reasons why we face the current situation. We rolled out testing in September,   and we have trained 300 sniffer dogs to detect those substances. That will have an impact, and we are already beginning to see it in some of our prisons.

Alistair Carmichael: The Lord Chancellor should perhaps bear in mind that questions of what is and is not legal are to be determined by the courts, not by Ministers and not by this House. I say to her gently that she cannot praise prison officers in one breath and then condemn them for being reckless in the next without trying to achieve some understanding of how things have reached this point. If she really wants the POA to come back to the negotiating table, might she think about the tone she adopts in dealing with this dispute, so that it might have some confidence that if it does return, it will be listened to?

Elizabeth Truss: I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have had a number of meetings with the POA and discussed issues of safety, on which I share its concerns. I am absolutely not attacking the hard-working prison officers on our frontline, but it is a mistake for the POA to call for unlawful industrial action in the middle of talks. I urge it instead to come back to the negotiating table, because that is how we will get a safer environment for our prison officers to work in; we will not get that through unlawful industrial action.

Victoria Prentis: When I was a very junior civil servant under a Labour Government, one of my first tasks was to get an injunction to stop the POA going on strike—we did that many years ago. Will the Secretary of State tell us the effects of the current unlawful industrial action, both on those who work in our prisons and on those detained in them?

Elizabeth Truss: We have implemented our contingency plans across the prison estate, at local, regional and national levels, but clearly we will not be able to run full regimes and that puts people at more risk. We are managing as safely as we can, but I strongly urge the POA to come back to the table to start negotiations again, so that we can reach a solution that helps make our prisons safer.

Caroline Flint: I have three prisons in my constituency, two closed and one open, and a fourth prison is nearby in Doncaster. Therefore, for the past 20 years I have known only too well the stresses and strains that those working in the service are under, particularly because the people who end up in prison today are pretty nasty characters who have committed some terrible crimes. The Secretary of State has said that she wants to hear from those on the front line about how we can make our prisons safer, so may I urge her to look at the charter of minimum safety standards produced by the Community union, which has worked with its front-line officers to identify practical ways forward to secure safer conditions in our prisons? Will she meet people from Community to discuss that document?

Elizabeth Truss: I visited HMP Bronzefield a couple of weeks ago, where I met members of Community  and discussed these safety issues. We agreed on a great number of things, which, in the White Paper, the Government have announced are taking place, and I am keen to continue those discussions.

Richard Drax: May I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend announced recently? I join her in condemning the action by the POA, which is not going to help it or the prisoners it is meant to be looking after. I, too, am concerned about retention, which affects the young offenders prison in my constituency. My local officers raise with me their fear that the courts do not have the sanctions available to impose tough enough sentences on those who assault prison officers—there is no deterrence. Will she examine that?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that crimes committed in prison against prison officers need to be treated extremely seriously, and I am working closely with the Attorney General and the Home Secretary to make sure that that is followed through.

Stella Creasy: We all welcome the Secretary of State’s willingness to tackle violence in prisons by funding additional officers, but she must be honest with the House about how this does not extend to those people working in our prisons in the private sector. Prisoners do not choose whether they end up in a public or private establishment, and those who work in the private sector, including those from my Community union, perform a public service in guarding those prisoners, whether the contract is directly with the Government or not. What is she going to do to help ensure the safety of all in our prisons and give them the respect they deserve?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I can confirm that those increases will also apply in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

James Berry: In response to concerns from prison officers, this Government criminalised psychoactive substances in prisons. My right hon. Friend has announced an increase in the number of prison officers, but will she inform the House what other steps have been taken to increase safety in prisons, including limiting the illegal use of mobile phones by prisoners?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; mobile phones and drones pose a serious security threat. We are working closely with the mobile phone companies to be able to block those mobile phones in prisons. We are also rolling out the use of body-worn cameras across the estate to give officers more protection, and we are offering prison governors specific support in dealing with the issues they face in their particular establishments.

Alex Cunningham: Prison officers at Holme House prison in my constituency tell me that they, like others, have suffered cuts and seen increases in violence. The former Lord Chancellor and Education Secretary designated it an academy-type prison with new freedoms for the governor to do things differently. Assuming that these powers still exist, what difference are they making—or has that failed experiment also been abandoned?

Elizabeth Truss: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper in full, where we announced that further powers are being devolved to governors  right across the prison estate. This enables them to conduct their own recruitment campaigns and give special payments to retain officers, and it is working.

John Stevenson: The Secretary of State has talked about short-term issues, but if we are truly to see long-term reform of the Prison Service we need to empower governors to manage, lead and innovate. Does she agree with that and will she proceed on that basis?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are giving prison governors power over their education budgets, so that they can ensure that the offenders in their institutions are getting the skills they need to secure a job on release. We are enabling them to work with local employers and also to co-commission health services, so that there is closer work towards getting prisoners off drugs, which is a major cause of reoffending.

Madeleine Moon: Parc prison in Bridgend has an enviable record of successful  work in cutting intergenerational reoffending, reducing reoffending and of family intervention, which makes a difference. Does the Secretary of State understand the importance not just of staff numbers, but of appropriately skilled and trained officers, and, once we get them, of retaining them, because her record to date does not show that she does?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree that retaining staff is vital, which is why we have given these additional freedoms to governors. We are also recruiting more staff to the frontline so that staff feel safer, which is a very important part of the job. By having more staff on the frontline, we will enable more time to be spent turning offenders’ lives around, which is why the prison officers to whom I speak wanted to go into the service in the first place. What is important is getting offenders into jobs and off drugs.

Lucy Frazer: When the former shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Falconer, opened a debate on prison reform earlier this year, he rightly recognised that the problems in our prison system go back not one year or five years, but decades. Given that we have a situation in which more than half of adult males reoffend within a year of their release, should we not be focusing on rehabilitation rather than blame?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Reoffending is a huge cost to society—£15 billion a year—but it is also a huge cost to the victims who suffer from those crimes. The prison system is not turning lives around in the way that it should, which is why our White Paper was a plan for prison safety and reform. We need to have safe prisons in order to be able to reform offenders, and by reforming offenders our prisons will become safer too.

Jim McMahon: The tone of the statement from the Secretary of State today has been absolutely shameful. It is no wonder that relationships are at an all-time low. Will she take this opportunity to apologise to the House and to the officers for allowing things to get this far?

Elizabeth Truss: In my view, it is those on the Opposition Front Bench who need to condemn unlawful industrial action. I know that that will not solve the safety problems in our prison estate, but I want a constructive relationship—I want the POA to come back to the table.

Peter Bone: Is not the real problem that we still lock people up in Victorian prisons, which is not good for the safety of the prisoner or of the prison officer? Is not the solution to build modern new prisons such as the one the Government are building in Wellingborough? Will the Secretary of State update the House on how that programme is being developed?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As well as recruiting new staff and retaining our highly valued existing staff, we also need officers to be able to operate in modern, fit-for-purpose buildings, such as the one that we are putting in place in Wellingborough. I would be delighted to update him shortly on the plans for that.

Ian Lucas: Is the Secretary of State aware of the level of demoralisation that exists right across the criminal justice system in members of staff such as prison officers? In my respectful view, her tone today has been entirely misplaced and ill-judged. Given the current crisis that pervades our criminal justice system, is it not about time that she changed her approach and began talking to the people who have served that system for many, many years and stopped taking unilateral action against them and their terms and conditions at work?

Elizabeth Truss: I have had many discussions with prison officers across the prison estate, and I agree that there are issues with safety, which I am seeking to address. I want the job of prison officer to be highly respected, as it is a very important role in our society. What I am saying today is that we have been having discussions with the Prison Officers Association, and that it has failed to respond to the offer that has been put on the table and, instead, called unlawful industrial action. It is very, very poor indeed that the Opposition refuse to condemn unlawful industrial action, because that is what we are talking about.

Wendy Morton: I was particularly interested to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about the measures to tackle psychoactive substances. Does she agree that the rise in psychoactive substance use in our prisons has been a contributory factor in the increased levels of violence that we are seeing today?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that psychoactive substances have played a large part in the violence issues, which is why it was so important that we rolled out those drugs tests over the past month or so and that we have trained dogs to detect those substances. We have also seen a rise in the use of mobile phones and drones, which poses a new security threat. Again, we are dealing with that.

Philip Hollobone: In order to get staff numbers up quickly before the fresh permanent recruitment kicks in, will the Government consider   swallowing their pride and launch a programme to re-recruit prison officers who have recently left the service on temporary six or 12-month contracts?

Elizabeth Truss: We are absolutely willing to consider those people returning to the service. We want to recruit high quality officers.

Kevin Foster: The Justice Secretary says that she wishes to recruit high quality officers. Does she agree that veterans of our armed forces have exactly the type of skills needed to deal with challenging situations in our prisons? Will she update me on what is being done to ensure that they are recruited into the Prison Service?

Elizabeth Truss: We have a specific programme to recruit former armed service personnel who are highly suitable to working in the Prison Service as they bring with them values of discipline and hard work, which are so important in turning the lives of offenders around.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the plans to ensure that prisoners are rehabilitated so that when they leave prison, they do not reoffend?

Elizabeth Truss: We are putting the role of the Secretary of State into primary legislation to ensure that we are not just housing offenders, but turning lives around, getting people the education that they perhaps have not had in the past, getting them into work once they leave prison and getting them off drugs. All those things lead to a reduction in reoffending.

Tom Pursglove: I for one have enormous respect and admiration for our prison officers and for the difficult work that they do. A fortnight ago, the Secretary of State came to this House and committed to bring on stream an additional 2,500 prison officers. What reaction has she had to that announcement from the Prison Officers Association?

Elizabeth Truss: We did announce an additional 2,500 prison officers. That will enable every single officer to be responsible for six prisoners, which we know will achieve the results of improving safety and ensuring that we reform offenders. I would like to see the Prison Officers Association support that change.

HS2 UPDATE

Chris Grayling: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about HS2.
One of my first steps as the new Secretary of State for Transport was to reiterate the Government’s backing for HS2. I did so from the conviction that it is essential to delivering a modern, vibrant economy for the United Kingdom.
This is a Government who deliver the infrastructure projects that the economy needs, which is core to delivering a country that works for everyone, wherever in the country they live. Last month, we announced support for a new runway at Heathrow, showing that Britain is a dynamic country that is open to the world.
Today I am announcing the Government’s preferred route for HS2 lines from Crewe to Manchester and from the west midlands to Leeds, known as phase 2b, which will help to rebalance our economy beyond London and the south-east, ensuring that economic prosperity and opportunities are shared throughout the country. That means that following on from the 2013 consultation and work that we have done since, I am today confirming the majority of the route. There are a number of cases, including the proposed route through south Yorkshire recommended by Sir David Higgins in a report earlier this year, where I am proposing substantial refinements. I am launching a consultation to seek the views of communities and other interested parties before reaching a decision on those sections next year.
The first phase of HS2 from London to the west midlands is just over 100 miles long, but phase 2 is significantly longer at 174 miles. The route that I am confirming today represents a huge commitment to the midlands and to the north. HS2 is not just about a faster connection between the south-east, the midlands and the north. It represents a bold vision for connecting up the great cities of the north of England and of the midlands, both east and west. Connectivity is central to HS2. Poor connectivity between the cities and regions of the midlands and the north has restrained their economic growth. High quality transport allows businesses to grow, work together and access a wide range of customers, suppliers and skilled labour markets. By improving connections between our great cities, HS2 will generate jobs, skills and economic growth and help us to build an economy that works for all.
Today, only 4% of people who travel between Birmingham and Manchester do so by train—hardly surprising, when the journey takes around 90 minutes. But on HS2, it will take less than half that time—just  41 minutes—so at a stroke, those two regional capitals are much more closely linked and can deliver increased economic prosperity. The flow of people, ideas and opportunity will follow those new connections.
Work is also progressing to see how HS2 could help to deliver parts of a fast, frequent northern powerhouse rail network for Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and Newcastle. Where necessary, we will include passive provision for these services in the phase 2b hybrid Bill, subject to agreement of funding and the supporting business case. Just as important as connectivity is the uplift that HS2 will deliver to our transport system. It will not be a separate, stand-alone railway,  but an integral part of our nation’s future rail network and overall transport infrastructure. It will add to the overall capacity of our congested railways. Even those who never travel on HS2 stand to feel its benefits.
By providing new routes for intercity services, HS2 will free up space on our existing railways for new commuter, regional and freight services, while also taking lorries off our roads. It will provide new options for services to towns which currently do not have a direct connection to London. Tomorrow’s HS2 and east and west coast main lines could have 48 trains per hour to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. That compares with 29 today.
Even those who never travel by rail at all stand to benefit from the thousands of local jobs and apprenticeships created by the better connections that HS2 will bring and by the project itself. It will generate around 25,000 jobs during construction, as well as 2,000 apprenticeships. It will support growth in the wider economy, worth an additional 100,000 jobs. I recently visited the site of the new National College for High Speed Rail in Birmingham. Together with its sister college in Doncaster, it will open its doors next year to provide Britain’s workforce with the specialist training, skills and qualifications to build HS2 and future rail projects. It will deliver highly skilled, highly motivated people who will have the opportunity of a great career in a vital industry.
Today’s announcement represents an important step forward in delivering HS2, and with it the transport infrastructure essential to the economy of 21st century Britain. However, I am well aware that there are those with the firmly held view that HS2 should not go ahead, and those who doubt whether the case has been made satisfactorily. Indeed, I know that many Members of this House have strong convictions on this issue. I am under no illusions; this is not an easy undertaking, but I believe that it is the right thing to do. The easy thing to do would have been to keep patching the existing railways, making do and mending a railway that the Victorian pioneers themselves would still recognise, and hoping to fit ever-increasing passenger and freight growth in the same pint pot. That is not what the people of this country deserve, nor is it what our economy requires.
In addition to publishing today a Command Paper and accompanying maps, setting out the full detail of my preferred route for the HS2 phase 2b route, I have written to those Members whose constituencies are affected, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), will make himself available to Members who wish to meet him later today.
In order to ensure that our case is robust and in line with the requirements of the Treasury’s Green Book, we have of course considered alternatives to the phase 2b scheme. We found no alternative that could deliver the same level of benefit for the country, stand the test of time and provide the same level of capacity, connectivity and service as phase 2b does. Over the past few months I have personally visited most places along the HS2 route. I have seen and heard for myself all the issues, and I remain convinced that through this project we are delivering the right solution to the country’s transport needs.
It is important to say that I recognise that building major infrastructure will always be disruptive and disturbing for those living nearby, and I am mindful of the concerns of the constituents of very many Members of this  House. In proposing this route, I have listened to the views expressed in the consultation of 2013, as well as those of HS2 Ltd’s engineering and environmental specialists.
I am issuing safeguarding directions for the whole of the preferred phase 2b route today. That protects it from conflicting development, but it also means—this is extremely important—that the people who are most affected by these plans will be able to access statutory compensation straight away. In addition, I will be consulting on discretionary property schemes that will go over and above what is required by law and give assistance to those who will be adversely affected by the railway. These schemes are the same as those currently in operation for people living along the phase 1 route. I aim to be able to confirm next year the schemes on which I am consulting today.
Two of these schemes will come into operation from today. They are the express purchase scheme and the need to sell scheme. Express purchase allows owner-occupiers to apply to the Government to buy their home sooner than would be possible under statutory schemes. The Government will buy properties at their unblighted open market value, as if HS2 were not going to be being built, will provide a home loss payment of 10% of the property’s open market value up to £58,000, and will pay reasonable moving costs.
Need to sell is a purchase scheme for people who have a compelling reason to sell their property but cannot do so, other than at a significantly reduced price, because of HS2. There is no geographical boundary to this scheme. The Government will agree to buy property  for 100% of the open market value if an application is successful.
As I say, I am mindful of the impacts that HS2 has on communities. I can assure every Member of this House that my Department and HS2 Ltd will continue to work with affected communities and local authorities up and down the line of route, and in that process I expect people to be treated with fairness, compassion and respect.
Today marks the end of a long period of uncertainty for communities, councils and businesses along the route of phase 2b. These have been complex and difficult decisions to take, but I make no apology for taking the time to get them right and making sure that the route we are proposing offers the best possible outcomes for passengers, communities, the environment and the economy.
I need to touch briefly on phase 1. I can report to the House that phase 1 from Birmingham to London is progressing well. Construction work is due to start early next year, subject to Royal Assent. Phase 1 will open in 2026. In a clear signal of how work is progressing, this morning I have announced the companies that have been awarded the phase 1 enabling works contracts. These works include archaeology, site clearance and the setting up of construction compounds ahead of the start of the main civil engineering work. These contracts are worth up to £900 million and cover the whole of phase 1 from London to Birmingham and the connection to the west coast main line at Handsacre. Work is due to begin in the spring.
Another aspect of the preparatory work on phase 1 is the considerable engagement with those on the line of route, some of whom have taken up our express purchase compensation scheme. We are continuing this offer of  support and will be writing to those people whose homes or business may be directly affected by construction. We have a general obligation to continue to seek further reductions to adverse impacts during the design, construction and operation of the scheme. This is something that I will be watching very closely. In keeping with that obligation, HS2 Ltd has continued to look at possible mitigation measures around Euston station where existing rail lines converge. This could significantly reduce impacts on rail passengers and the local community. Any decision on the adoption of these possible mitigations would be taken closer to the letting of main contracts next year, and I will update the House at that time.
This is part of a wider design process, which will continue to add detail to our proposals for phase 1 well into next year and beyond. I would expect similar mitigations to come forward elsewhere along the route as the detailed design stage starts in earnest after Royal Assent.
HS2 is an ambitious and exciting project, and we must seize the opportunity it offers to transform our country for future generations. Local authorities and local enterprise partnerships are gearing up for HS2 and developing growth strategies, supported by UK Government growth strategy funding, to maximise the benefits of HS2 in their area. I am pleased to announce further funding today for Manchester, the northern gateway partnership, Leeds and the east Midlands, and the first tranche of funding for Sheffield, to support this important work.
This Government are planning for the future. We are taking the big decisions and investing in world-class transport infrastructure. We are ensuring that the UK can seize opportunities and compete on the global stage. But we are also aiming to deliver more capacity on our overcrowded railway, which could see a 65% increase in the number of trains on this part of the network.
The route decision I published today takes us an important step closer to realising the full potential of HS2. It means better transport connections and capacity, more jobs and more training opportunities. Just as importantly, it links centres of innovation and opportunity in the cities and regions of the midlands, the north and our knowledge economy. I commend this statement to the House.

Andy McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it, for which I am most grateful.
Labour Members are pleased to finally have a partial announcement of the HS2 route, and it is to be very much welcomed, as the delay in getting to this announcement has been immensely stressful for the communities concerned. Labour supports HS2 because we recognise the need for not only faster journey times and improved connectivity but, most importantly, extra capacity—not just for the benefit of passengers, but to transfer freight from road to rail, as the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement.
The employment, and in many cases the lifelong career opportunities, that HS2 will bring will be immense, and we very much welcome all of that, but that does not  mean that our support is without qualification, as considerable concerns still remain. There are significant details of the route that have not been confirmed in today’ s announcement—most notably a decision on whether to site a station in or around Sheffield, which has been dodged, along with three decisions on the western leg and three on the eastern leg. This is not the first time we have experienced this Government dithering on key infrastructure decisions. While we welcome the consultation that is to follow, there is clearly a risk that it may cause the Government to overly delay decisions, as we have seen recently on a number of nationally important pieces of infrastructure. I ask for an assurance from the Secretary of State that that will not be the case in this instance.
During the consultation, it is imperative that the voices of local communities be heard—especially those communities that will be particularly disrupted by the route as we now know it. Among other things, we have seen the pain and anguish caused to many villages and communities in the south Yorkshire region and elsewhere, and while we need to study the detail of the proposals we must ensure that proper mitigations and comprehensive compensation schemes are in place. There will be strong arguments made to modify the alignment of the route in many cases, and those arguments will have to be given proper consideration.
Earlier this year, the National Audit Office reported that HS2 had an “unrealistic timetable” and faced major cost pressures, and that too ambitious a timetable meant that not all the intended benefits would be delivered. We have seen similar problems beset other rail projects, with the Government recently reneging on their manifesto commitment regarding electrification works on the Great Western route and refusing to commit to the already delayed timetable of electrification works on the midland main line. The Department for Transport has a track record of being unable to complete works on time or on budget, so there is understandable concern that HS2 will not be delivered to budget or on time, and I ask the Secretary of State to confirm unequivocally that the planned start dates will be met and the project delivered on the planned timescale and costings.
This is not solely about HS2. So-called HS3 has to be progressed, as do the paused and unpaused enhancement works that are essential to bring greater connectivities to communities that are not directly connected to HS2. They cannot be forgotten, and they cannot be left behind. The benefits that HS2 can bring to the country are significant, but the Government must get a grip to keep the project on track and to avoid the concerns expressed in the National Audit Office report being realised.
The Government announced that a new rail franchise, the west coast partnership, which is scheduled to start on 1 April 2019, will combine the current inter-city west coast services with HS2, meaning that HS2 will be run in the private sector from 2026 and that Virgin looks set to be granted a further uncontested 12-month contract to run inter-city west coast trains. The Government seem determined to hand over vast swathes of our public services, and what should be our public services, to Richard Branson en masse. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being invested in HS2, so it is right that the revenues go back to the Exchequer and not into the hands of train operating companies. HS2 should be run in the public sector, as a public service.
Given the concerns about the cost of HS2, the Government should be looking to get the best deal for the UK rather than the shareholders of private train companies or the taxpayers of Germany, France or Holland. It is time to take back control of our railways. Labour is committed to the public ownership and running of our railways, and that includes HS2. A future Labour Government would bring any such franchise back within public operation at the earliest possible opportunity. We support HS2, but it has to deliver for taxpayers and passengers alike, and that will be the consistent challenge for Parliament in the years ahead.

Chris Grayling: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the principle of the project, although we obviously have one or two areas of difference.
Let me start with the issue of the route through Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of dithering. I would simply remind him that we have a statutory duty to consult. We are bringing forward a new set of proposals. He will not, I am sure, argue that I should break the law when it comes to the consultation process that we need to go through. I clearly want to give people as much certainty as possible, as quickly as possible, but I have a statutory duty, and I intend to fulfil it.
I recognise the issue that local communities face, and part of what we will need to do through that consultation process is listen to those local communities about the things we can do, large and small, to mitigate the impacts on them. That is a very important part of the consultation process.
The hon. Gentleman talks about an unrealistic timetable. I think many people in this country would share my frustration that, actually, it will take 17 years from today to complete the whole of HS2. If that is an unrealistic timetable—if it should take much longer—heaven help us. This project has taken a long time to get to this point and will take more years than I would wish to complete—and we need it to be completed—so the idea that it is an unrealistic timetable to complete this project by 2033 seems to me a strange one.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of electrification. I would simply remind him that, through 13 years in government, Labour electrified 10 miles of railway line. It is small wonder, when we actually started to electrify key main lines, that the expertise was no longer there. It is all very well Labour calling on us to do this, but we are the ones who are undertaking the modernisation of our railways. Through all those years when Labour was in power, the investments in our railways were pitiful by comparison with what we are doing today.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of HS3. He will be aware that Transport for the North is working on proposals for what is now being called northern powerhouse rail. That will be much more than a single railway line, and it will build the connectivity we need from east to west. I am waiting with interest to see Transport for the North’s proposals for the future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the west coast partnership. He will understand that, on the day before this line opens, there will be Pendolinos running up the west coast main line, and, on the day after, there will be express trains running up HS2 to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. I want that to be a smooth transition. We have to make sure the train drivers are trained. We  have to make sure the staff are ready for the change. I do not envisage a situation where we sack all the staff one day and hire a new group the next. It makes sense to have a smooth transition, and that is what we are planning.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the private sector, let the Labour party hark back to the days of British Rail; we want a railway that is modern and progressive. Since the railways were privatised, after decades of decline, the number of passengers has doubled and new stations and railway lines have opened. This is a railway that is moving forwards, not backwards, as it would under Labour.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome today’s announcement by the Secretary of State, not least because it gives a degree of certainty to all the poor people and businesses that are going to be affected by this project. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not share his overexcitement about its potential, as no benefit accrues to the Chilterns. He is well aware of my criticism of how HS2 has conducted its operations. Will he therefore give me, and people beyond this Chamber, a personal undertaking that there will be generous, fair and rapid compensation, the highest environmental protection, and timely and thoughtful community engagement? I hope that there will also be a revision of the totally archaic hybrid Bill process, which has in itself added pain to the suffering that people along the line have had to experience so far. It is crucial that lessons are learned from phase 1 before we embark on phase 2a.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely echo the need to make sure that we do the right thing by people affected on the route. I slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend about the benefits in the Chilterns, although it is true that in her constituency, which is on a different line, the benefits are different from those a little further away on the other side of the Chilterns on the line that runs up through towns such as Tring, where there will be a benefit in extra capacity on commuter services—it is estimated that there will be twice as many seats on trains going to Euston station in the morning peak, and I think that will be very welcome to the people who use that line. Of course, I absolutely understand that we have to take great care. I share her concern about the hybrid Bill process. It is clear from the discussions we have had on this in the past that there is a widespread view in this House that we want a simplified and modernised process, and work is being done right now on how that might be achieved. However, I also believe very strongly that we need to invest in our future, and that is what this is about.

Drew Hendry: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I have studied all seven pages of it. He starts by stating that in making his decision he “did so from the conviction that it is essential to delivering a modern, vibrant economy for the United Kingdom”, and ends by saying that he is “ensuring that the UK can seize opportunities and compete on the global stage.” Yet in seven pages mentioning 34 places, including the future beneficiaries, not once does Scotland get a mention. There is nothing about connecting Scotland and there are no options for Edinburgh, Glasgow or any other Scottish city—no passing comment even. We  support high-speed rail, but not just to Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. This announcement, unless followed by a commitment to speed up links to Scotland, means, in effect, our getting further away from London, in relative terms. When did he discuss this announcement with the Scottish Government, and what guarantee did he give for high-speed rail to be connected to Scotland?

Chris Grayling: Let me start by reminding the hon. Gentleman that I have made two very significant transport announcements in this House in the past month, the last of which was very specifically focused on ensuring that we had better aviation links both to London and internationally via our expansion of Heathrow airport. I was particularly keen to stress the importance of protecting connectivity particularly to Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the air links are so crucial to the economies of those nations. Let nobody suggest that I am not interested in connectivity to Scotland; it is a priority for us. Let us be clear about what this project delivers for passengers travelling down the east coast and west coast routes, who will benefit as much as anybody else from the increased speeds at which they are able to travel over most of the route to Scotland. There is therefore a benefit to Scottish passengers as well. Let us also remember that this is much more than simply a transport project: it will generate a whole set of new skills and business opportunities for this country—for this United Kingdom. Indeed, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), recently spoke at a suppliers’ conference in Aberdeen. I fully expect to see jobs created in Scotland and opportunities for business in Scotland. That is all part of how we seek to represent and support this entire United Kingdom.

John Bercow: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is clearly a very lucky fellow indeed; I am sure that he much enjoyed orating to the said conference.

Theresa Villiers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the massive improvement programme for our railways—not just HS2 but the existing network—is a fundamental part of the Government’s programme to deliver economic success and economic rebalancing?

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very important to see today’s announcement in a broader context, because while we are investing in the long term we are also investing in the short term. To give just one example, £350 million is being spent on improvements to the rail network around Liverpool. There are many other examples around the country—indeed, there are improvements in Scotland and in Wales. Our Government strategy is about much more than this railway line; it is about delivering transport improvements across the whole United Kingdom.

Yvette Cooper: Those of my constituents who are affected by this will be appalled that none of their proposals on the route has been taken into account, either on the route itself or on mitigation, and will, frankly, wonder why they bothered. There is a concern that the Government  and HS2 are taking seriously the concerns and interests of cities but not those of towns and smaller communities, and that there is a willingness to invest in mitigation or tunnelling for the south but not for the north. What can the Secretary of State say to my constituents to give them any good reason to carry on engaging with this process at all?

Chris Grayling: I would say to the right hon. Lady’s constituents that we fully intend to go through a process of detailed engagement. I am happy, as is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to meet her to talk about these issues. I have travelled the route and seen for myself some of the issues and challenges. I have in mind some things that we might do to help improve the design of the route and reduce its visual impact. I will listen to her and to other Members. Fundamentally, though, she will understand, as a Yorkshire MP, the importance of this kind of connectivity to the economy of her region and the jobs it will create. We have to do this in the best possible way.

Maggie Throup: As my right hon. Friend is aware, many of my constituents have been living under a great deal of stress for three years now. I am sure that residents and businesses alike will welcome the compensation package that he outlined, especially those directly on the route through Long Eaton, but will he reassure the whole of Long Eaton that it will not be cut in half by the track that will go through it?

Chris Grayling: I have been particularly concerned about Long Eaton, for which we have tabled two options for consideration: a high-level viaduct and a low-level viaduct. I am well aware of the issue that the town faces; this is a complicated piece of engineering. Of course, the jobs created by the new development around Toton will be of benefit to Long Eaton. We will do our best to get this right, and that is why we have tabled more than one option for consideration by the local community.

Louise Ellman: I welcome this statement, with its promise of much-needed increased rail capacity, together with the jobs that go with that. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about how this investment will benefit the whole network, and how the economic benefits will actually be achieved? In particular, how much is he working with Rail North in bringing maximum benefit to the cities of the north, including Liverpool?

Chris Grayling: We awaiting the proposals of Rail North and Transport for the North on the connectivity that runs east to west, which I regard as very important. For a city such as Liverpool, there are two particular benefits. One of those will come through the part that this development has to play in that east-west connectivity, particularly with the routes around south Manchester. In addition—as the hon. Lady knows, I have been a regular user of the route to Liverpool over the years—there will be more trains to Liverpool and they will run faster from Liverpool to London than they do now. That will knock a significant amount off the journey time, making a real difference to her and her constituents when they travel not only to London but to Birmingham.

Martin Vickers: Network Rail purchases much of its rail track from the Scunthorpe steelworks in the neighbouring constituency to mine. What efforts will my right hon. Friend make to ensure that British manufacturers are used in the production of most of the HS2 infrastructure?

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to say that the contracts announced today will involve very substantial British participation in the early works. The vast majority of steel used on our railways today comes from British plants. I do not expect that to change, nor do I want it to change. I am also very clear that the businesses that take part in this programme have to leave a skills footprint behind them. I am not interested in firms that just turn up and do not expect to invest in the next generation of skills that this country needs. We need to be very robust on that throughout the procurement process. Moreover, this will allow us to provide extra connectivity to towns that do not currently have direct services to London.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State should not airbrush history and the massive £8 billion upgrade to the west coast under the last Labour Government. There was a huge improvement in services and a huge increase in the number of passengers using them.
I want to ask a specific question about my constituency. The Command Paper states that there will be an additional train to Liverpool, so there will be two trains per hour. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they will also stop at Runcorn, as is currently the case?

Chris Grayling: I do not expect any changes to the service to Runcorn. It would be a big step in the wrong direction if that service changed. The Liverpool trains have always stopped at Runcorn and Liverpool, and I would not want that to change.

Antoinette Sandbach: Whole new areas in my constituency will be blighted as a result of today’s announcement, although other parts of it will benefit from the hub at Crewe. Given the blight on my constituency, will the Secretary of State agree to visit Eddisbury to speak to my local residents and hear their concerns about how it will impact on them?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend knows, I lived very close to the route some years ago, so I had advance knowledge of how difficult it will be for many of her constituents. Of course, we are very happy to engage with her and her constituents on the issue. As I have said, there is no easy way of delivering such a big infrastructure project without consequences for some people, but we will do everything we can to mitigate its impact wherever possible.

Kevin Barron: HS2’s rejection of the Sheffield Meadowhall option—it said that there was a lack of consensus—is a stab in the back for the south Yorkshire economy. The reroute through the three villages of Wales, Aston and Bramley in my constituency will knock down homes and businesses. There is no consensus for that, either. Can we just have some common sense, instead of moving around all the time? If the  decision was made about Meadowhall and compensation paid to householders as a result, why should there be a reroute?

Chris Grayling: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Sir David Higgins did a lot of detailed work on that issue. Strong views were expressed in Sheffield about what worked best for the city. I have been to Aston and seen the potential impact. I will work to try to ensure that we get the maximum possible mitigation in such areas, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, if we are to deliver opportunities and prosperity for the northern part of the country, we need to make sure that it has the connectivity it needs.

Iain Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend set out in a little more detail the additional inter-city and commuter services from which places such as Milton Keynes will benefit once HS2 is operational?

Chris Grayling: One of the benefits that will be experienced by towns on the existing west coast main line will be the potential for a significant increase in the number of services. For example, for those who commute from Milton Keynes to London, we expect twice as many seats to be available on suburban routes to Hertfordshire and beyond to Milton Keynes, and greater opportunities for semi-fast services. The route from the town of Coventry to Birmingham is two tracks wide and constantly congested, as freight, express and passenger trains jockey for position. The proposal will create a huge additional amount of much-needed capacity for commuters to Birmingham on that very busy route.

Andy Burnham: I welcome the fact that HS2 has listened to residents in the Lowton and Golborne area and moved the depot off a site of special scientific interest to more appropriate location. Is it not the truth, however, that the investment in HS2 will make sense to the majority of people in the north only when it is combined with investment in new east-west, high-speed lines linking the great cities? Our roads are full and cannot take any more, so will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to use the autumn statement to set out a clear timetable for northern powerhouse rail, including a completion date to tie in with HS2? Will the Government make that investment a higher investment a higher priority for transport investment than spending billions more pounds on London with Crossrail 2?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a powerful advocate of the city that he hopes to represent as mayor. He is also a Liverpudlian, so he will be aware of the substantial amounts of money that we are spending on improvements in both Liverpool and Manchester. One of the benefits of the arrival of HS2 in Manchester will be to create much more connectivity on the suburban routes to Manchester Piccadilly, which is much needed. We are also poised to open links between Piccadilly and Victoria, so improvements are happening today and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that more are needed for the future.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the  fact that the Secretary of State is prepared to listen to pleas for mitigation. In my constituency, three or four  communities are bisected by the rail. There are alternatives, such as tunnelling, and we need to continue to look  at them.

Chris Grayling: I give my hon. Friend an assurance that that will happen. It happens, of course, as part of the consultation process for such proposals, and the hybrid Bill process that lies ahead will give his constituents every opportunity to seek change from this House, in the same way as they previously sought change from this Government.

Helen Jones: The original justification for the spur that goes through my constituency was the stock depot at Golborne. It has now been announced that that depot will move to north of Crewe, so why is the Secretary of State continuing with a spur that will devastate the village of Hollins Green in my constituency, have a huge environmental impact on Culcheth, even though the line has moved slightly, and does not even give Warrington a station so that it can profit from all that disruption? There are other places in the north-west besides Liverpool and Manchester, but the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten that, if we are going to have the HS2 line, they need to profit from it, to compensate for all the disruption.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady of all people should know that the last thing I would do is forget that places such as Warrington exist. The issue on the west coast main line north of Crewe is that much of the route through Warrington and up to Wigan is two-track. To try to fit the HS2 trains while meeting existing demand for freight and for passenger services from Liverpool and Manchester is almost impossible to engineer. We have, therefore, chosen the route that maximises rail capacity through Warrington. There will be HS2 services that serve Warrington and that, in addition, create the speed, connectivity and extra capacity that we need.

Stuart Andrew: This is, indeed, good news for the city of Leeds, which is already starting to experience the economic benefits, with companies such as Burberry investing in it because of HS2. I welcome in particular the integrated approach to Leeds station. Does the Secretary of State agree that all the towns and villages across west Yorkshire have an opportunity to benefit from HS2 through a properly integrated station, and that what we really need now is a properly integrated transport system in the city of Leeds, to cope with the number of people who want to invest there?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Such investment builds economic strength in cities such as Leeds, and that ripples out across the whole region by creating not only jobs in Leeds, but opportunities for businesses in west Yorkshire. This will be of huge benefit to the economy of the whole area around Leeds, permeating into the rural areas, and it will deliver real improvements to the economy of the north as a whole.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Secretary of State will no doubt have seen last Thursday’s ITV programme supporting the powerful case against HS2.  I am not alone in considering HS2 to be wholly unnecessary, and it will, indeed, be horrendously expensive. For much less than its likely eventual cost, essential modernisations, electrifications, additions and upgrades on our railways could all be funded. Would not that be a much more sensible investment?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman misses the central point, which is that this is a project about capacity. Whenever we have Transport questions, we hear about the pressures and congestion on, and the challenges for, our rail network. The west coast and east coast main lines, which are principal routes, are mixing together express long-distance trains, intermediate semi-fast trains, local community trains and freight trains. When things go wrong, they become congested and the trains are mixed and matched. We have to create extra capacity if we are going to be able to deliver solutions to the demands of the next generation. That is what this project is all about.

Alec Shelbrooke: May  I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? As one of my constituents put it to me, what has happened today, with the actioning of my proposed reroute of the branch line to Leeds at Woodlesford, shows that the political system does work. However, the main line past Swillington and Garforth in my constituency remains unchanged, so will my right hon. Friend meet me at the earliest opportunity to discuss mitigation and landscaping that will limit the impact on my constituents?

Chris Grayling: I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s constituents are happy with the change in his area. My hon. Friend the Minister will be happy to meet Members from across the House later today if they wish to raise specific issues, and of course we will have those discussions.
I want to mention something that I should have said in my earlier remarks. I cannot remember which Opposition Member’s constituency includes Crofton, where one of the depots is planned. I have been to the site and I am looking actively at whether we can find an alternative location for the depot. I hope to be able to bring forward an alternative, but I cannot provide guarantees today.

Callum McCaig: The Secretary of State mentioned Aberdeen. In 2013, KPMG found that the annual impact of HS2 on the economy of the north-east of Scotland would be £220 million a year. Can he update that figure, and will he tell the House what he is doing to mitigate the possible economic loss?

Chris Grayling: I do not have an updated figure for the hon. Gentleman, but to ensure that Aberdeen prospers, we are making sure: first, that we have a growing economy; secondly, that we continue to provide financial support to the Scottish economy from across the rest of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, that we continue to look to create job opportunities and business opportunities in this programme for people in Aberdeen. That was why my hon. Friend the Minister went there.

Nigel Mills: Does the Secretary of State agree that to get the full benefit of HS2 in the east midlands, the midland mainline needs to be electrified right through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield? Will he therefore confirm that there will be no further delays in that project?

Chris Grayling: We are moving ahead now and work is being done on the next stage of electrification. I am very keen to ensure that, by 2020, we will be able to deliver improved capacity and the improved speed on trains, but we will make sure that all the benefits are delivered as quickly as possible.

Chris Matheson: HS2 can be justified only if its full benefits are spread across the country and it is not simply a link between major city centres. For Cheshire, that means that we must proceed with the Crewe hub to spread those benefits around. The Secretary of State has not made his decision yet, so will he tell us when we can expect to hear about the Crewe hub? Will he also confirm that investment in HS2 will not detract from further electrification along the Chester and north Wales line?

Chris Grayling: The improvements that we are making to the rest of the network are separate from HS2. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are doing a vast amount of work around the rail network—we will continue to do so. With regard to Crewe, we will have to put forward new proposals for consultation, but it is clear to me that Crewe station will have improved connectivity and will play a central part in our plans.

Anna Soubry: We would like a tunnel, please, at Strelley village, but HS2 enjoys widespread cross-party support in Broxtowe and beyond, because we get the east midlands hub at Toton sidings, Stapleford. HS2 delivers capacity and growth. To that end, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that at Toton we get a world-class business park, not just hundreds of homes and houses?

Chris Grayling: I have been to Toton. The site was once one of Britain’s great railway centres, so it is sad to see it overgrown, as it is at present. I fully expect that we will engender a real process of regeneration, with both residential and commercial development around the site. It will, of course, be for the local authority and Members of Parliament such as my right hon. Friend to shape exactly what that development should be. We want her region to be a major centre of economic regeneration, and the Toton site, large as it is, provides a real opportunity for that.

Greg Mulholland: I have long campaigned for high-speed rail for Leeds, but the HS2, HS3, and phases 2a and 2b proposals are clearly flawed. Not to have a station in Sheffield is simply ludicrous. Why will the Government still not look properly at the alternative High Speed UK proposals, which are £20 billion cheaper and far more environmentally friendly? The scheme would also provide better connectivity and would not plough through the Chilterns. Why will the Government not consider that?

Chris Grayling: With all respect, I think that turning the clock back and starting the process all over again—going through the process of another hybrid Bill to get this  project off the ground—would delay the project further and further into the future. We have taken a project that originated from the previous Labour Government and developed it further. We have put in place a clear plan, and next spring we start construction. I, for one, am not in favour of turning the clock back.

Amanda Solloway: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that the project will have a significant impact for the midlands engine for growth, and particularly for Derby, which is known as a rail city?

Chris Grayling: Derby is one of the places that will benefit from the proposals. Having the new east midlands hub between Nottingham and Derby will give both cities the opportunity to benefit enormously from it. I will be surprised if the great rail industries of Derby do not play a pretty active part in the programme.

Yasmin Qureshi: I extend an invitation to the Secretary of State to come to Bolton and travel with me on the trains during rush hour. He would see how my constituents are squashed like sardines, how short the trains are, and how many of my constituents miss their trains and are late for work. Why can the Government not find some investment—proper money—for Bolton and the surrounding areas?

Chris Grayling: I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes the new northern franchise, which includes longer and newer trains, more services and the electrification of key routes around Greater Manchester. It should deliver a much better travelling experience for the public of the north, because that experience has not been good enough for a very long time. We are taking the action that is needed to make it much better for the future.

Jason McCartney: May I give the Secretary of State one more opportunity to confirm the huge investment in the great north railway? That is not instead of, but as well as, investment in our local and regional services. Does he agree that to win hearts and minds, we must emphasise quality jobs and apprenticeships, connectivity between towns as well as cities, and a supercharged HS3 between Liverpool and the city of culture, Hull?

Chris Grayling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the job of delivering the northern powerhouse is delivering connectivity that goes from east to west—or west to east, depending on which way we look at it. This is about not just rail but road improvements. In my work on how we shape the next generation of investments, I am mindful of the need to ensure that that east-west connectivity for the north is delivered.

Clive Betts: I have been open-minded about the right location for the Sheffield station, but may we have a clear indication from the Secretary of State of when a decision will be made? Many of my constituents have had their homes and lives blighted for many years. Will he give us some clarification about the possible Sheffield city centre station? Is it true that the trains that run there will be shorter and narrower than the full HS2 trains? In other words, is it true that they will not be full HS2 trains?  Given that it does not look as though the midland mainline electrification will happen, will HS2 now have to pick up the full bill for electrification from the HS2 line into Sheffield station?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes some assumptions on the latter point. The trains that operate off the HS2 network will be a different design from those that operate exclusively on the HS2 network—that is to do with platform widths and gauges. That does not mean that they are slower trains or that they are less good trains; they are simply trains that can operate both on HS2 and on a conventional network. Clearly, if those trains go through Sheffield midland station, which is on the conventional network, we will be using them.

Craig Tracey: North Warwickshire has consistently suffered due to a lack of engagement from HS2, so I was alarmed to learn this morning that despite assurances given by HS2 to my local council just three weeks ago, there would be no changes to the line locally. The line will, in fact, move around 150 metres nearer to the village of Austrey, although that significant change was not even mentioned in the route refinement document. That the very first paper published on phase 2b directly contradicts information offered by HS2 so recently is cause for great concern. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that communication will actually improve? Will he meet me to discuss the impacts of the most recent changes on my constituents?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was not aware of the situation that he describes, and the Minister and I will talk to him about how we address it.

Phil Wilson: Hitachi Rail Europe in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency is well placed to manufacture the rolling stock for HS2. It has a long track record of more than 50 years of building high-speed trains, such as the bullet train in the 1960s in Tokyo. Will the Secretary of State outline the procurement timeline in the coming years, and will he tell us when the rolling stock will start to be produced?

Chris Grayling: I can start by letting the hon. Gentleman know in advance that I will be visiting the plant in Newton Aycliffe next month. It is a great addition to our manufacturing base, and I look forward to seeing the first trains from that plant operating on our network. The team at Hitachi is doing a great job for us.
I obviously cannot prejudge the outcome of the tender process—it will take place towards the end of this decade—but I am clear that the company that builds the trains for HS2 must leave a skills footprint in this country. We will not simply bring trains in on a ship, with no benefit for engineering skills or apprenticeships in this country. I want a genuine process that will leave behind a skills footprint with regard to not just rolling stock contracts, but the whole contract.

Julian Sturdy: Like many, I very much welcome the statement, including the link into the existing network at York. However, what assurances  can my right hon. Friend give that York will not be bypassed in any future development further north beyond the second phase of HS2?

Chris Grayling: I cannot judge future developments, but York will be one of the places that benefits from HS2 connectivity: trains will run up the HS2 line and on through York. The extra capacity and extra speeds—the extra capacity on the east coast main line, and the extra speed and connectivity to London—will very much benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Toby Perkins: Having regularly buttonholed the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), to ensure that Chesterfield was included in HS2, I am highly delighted with the Secretary of State’s proposal. Will he, however, confirm that passengers boarding HS2 at Chesterfield will have single-train access to Birmingham and London, as well as north to Sheffield and Leeds?

Chris Grayling: It is certainly our intention that people who board at Chesterfield and Sheffield will have good connections to London. I expect that there will be through trains. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a number at the moment, but I am expect that to happen.

John Stevenson: I congratulate the Government on their joined-up thinking on the west coast franchise and HS2, and welcome today’s announcement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will, in due course, be a third stage to take the route further north—arguably to the true north—and will he take Carlisle into account as a possible station?

Chris Grayling: I hear my hon. Friend’s representation. I am not in a position to give him such a guarantee today, but Carlisle will benefit from faster services, and specifically from the HS2 rolling stock that will come up the west coast main line to Carlisle, which will improve connectivity for his area from north to south. I am looking forward to talking to him about the A69 connectivity from east to west.

Ian Lucas: If HS2 is indeed to benefit the whole of the UK, it is important that areas such as north Wales, with its important routes to Ireland, receive investment and connectivity. May I therefore press the Secretary of State on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) about Crewe? Will the Secretary of State ensure that connectivity to north Wales, and beyond it to Ireland, is an essential part of any plans relating to Crewe station?

Chris Grayling: I am well aware of the issues about the north Wales line and its importance to the economy of north Wales. I recently discussed that with the Secretary of State for Wales and, indeed, the Welsh Assembly Government. This is very much on my to-do list as we look to the future.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I was interested to read that high-speed rail services are being considered for  rail passengers in Macclesfield and, indeed, in Stoke-on-Trent. Will he tell the House the time within which these decisions are likely to be made, and will he confirm that, whatever the outcome, passengers from Macclesfield will continue to enjoy the same speed and frequency of rail services as they do today?

Chris Grayling: It is certainly our intention that HS2 services should not reach Manchester exclusively by the existing route. We have talked about Stoke-on-Trent, and Macclesfield is one of the places on the same line. The other benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituents, many of whom work in Manchester, is that this will provide far more opportunity for commuter services, and far more space on those commuter services, for them and people living further north on the way into Manchester, which in my view they very much need.

Mike Kane: As the Secretary of State is an avid Manchester United fan, may I ask him what first attracted him to extending the high-speed line from his home in the south-east to his beloved Old Trafford? Secondly, what discussions he has had with Transport for Greater Manchester about extending the light rail network out to the HS2 station at Manchester airport in my constituency?

Chris Grayling: On the latter point, there is an obvious logic in continuing to develop the Metrolink network. We have just announced additional routes to the west of the centre—indeed, passing pretty close to Old Trafford—so I am very open to discussing with the new Mayor, when he or she is elected in the summer, the ways in which we can continue to develop the transport system in Manchester.
As for the direct route between Surrey and Old Trafford, although they say that most Manchester United supporters live in Surrey, I suspect that we might struggle to get the passenger numbers to justify a high-speed route all that way.

John Bercow: I hope I am a lot happier just after 2.30 this Saturday afternoon than the Secretary of State, who knows my allegiance in this matter.

Philip Hollobone: Midland main line electrification has a better benefit-cost ratio than any other electrification scheme and a better benefit-cost ratio than HS2. For a fraction of HS2’s cost, it would deliver momentous line speed and capacity improvements for towns across the east midlands, including Kettering. Will the Secretary of State use this opportunity to commit to fulfilling the Government’s pledge to complete the electrification of the midland main line by 2023?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will be aware that work has already started on the electrification process that will, in the next stage, go as far as Corby, as well as—this tends to be seen rather as the poor relation—on track improvements and extra tracks passing up through his constituency to Corby, which will enable us to have much faster trains and much more capacity. My goal is to deliver faster journey times and extra capacity by 2020—long before the date he mentioned.

Jonathan Edwards: In the statement of funding policy that accompanied the comprehensive spending review, Wales was allocated a 0% Barnett rating, whereas Scotland and Northern  Ireland both got a 100% rating. This means that Wales will lose out on a full Barnett allocation from HS2. As expenditure increases during the construction phase, so will the impact on the Welsh Government’s budget compared with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State look at this issue once again and ensure that this injustice is rectified?

Chris Grayling: My view is that this is about transport improvements around the country. I, of course, regard improvements in Wales as extremely important. I met the Minister responsible for transport in Wales last week, and we will work together to deliver the improvements that Wales needs.

James Heappey: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging a west country interloper on these proceedings. I very much welcome the improved connectivity to the midlands and the north that HS2 will bring, but an awful lot of the country lies to the west, so it is regrettable that key parts of the electrification programme on the Great Western Railway have been deferred. As we build an economy that works for all parts of the UK, will the Secretary of State look again at the benefits of running fully electric trains all the way from Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads, which for so many rail users is the entry point to Somerset and the whole of the south-west of England?

Chris Grayling: I am as frustrated as anybody by the challenges we have had on the Great Western Railway route. One of the great ironies is that while the Labour party attacks us on rail issues and talks about the need for renationalisation, one of its targets is the one bit of the rail industry that is in the public sector. The fact is that Network Rail has not been involved in electrification for many years. It did virtually nothing in Labour’s years in power. This first project has developed more problems and challenges than expected, but I still want it to be completed as quickly as possible.

Tom Pursglove: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), but I will unashamedly ask for more. I want more services, both northbound and southbound, running to Corby. Our town is growing hugely and at a rapid rate, and we need more capacity to meet growing demand and to utilise the existing lines. How will phase 2b of HS2 help to unlock opportunities through the midland main line?

Chris Grayling: The more that we take express trains off the existing main lines and the more we move passengers on to the new capacity, the more capacity will be created for intermediate journeys. The big difference for my hon. Friend’s constituency is the unheralded one of just building an extra track to Corby. That will make more difference to his town than almost anything else. By 2020, we need to have delivered much more capacity on the routes used by people represented by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). That will be essential to deliver a proper, effective commuter rail network, alongside what needs to continue to be a good express system to the midlands and the north.

Defibrillators (Availability)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Maria Caulfield: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of defibrillators in education establishments, and in leisure, sports and certain other public facilities; to make provision for training persons to operate defibrillators; to make provision for funding the acquisition, installation, use and maintenance of defibrillators; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the rates of survival from non-hospital cardiac arrests across the UK. Currently, our record in this country for survival from cardiac arrest is dismal. According to the British Heart Foundation, almost 30,000 cardiac arrests a year occur outside hospitals, and less than 10% of the people who suffer those cardiac arrests survive. In fact, in parts of England survival rates are close to 2%. Behind those statistics are people, families and communities.
Cardiac arrests can happen for many reasons, from trauma right through to congenital heart defects. Even more frightening than the 10% survival figure is the fact that 12 young people each week will die from arrhythmic death syndrome, a hidden condition that can strike at any time—young people such as Oliver King, who died from a cardiac arrest aged 12. A young lad from Liverpool, he was popular and very sporty, and died after winning a swimming competition. When he died, no defibrillator was available. Paramedics took just 24 minutes to get to the scene. His father, Mark, is here in the Gallery today, along with other members of the Oliver King Foundation, because they are convinced that if a defibrillator had been available at the scene Oliver would be alive now. They have campaigned week after week in this place, with many Members, for defibrillators to be made available throughout the country. Today, we are just short of two months away from what would have been Oliver’s 18th birthday.
Let us be under no illusion about the difference defibrillators could make. A defibrillator can greatly increase survival rates from cardiac arrest, by almost as much as 80%. But for them to be successful, minutes count, and quick access to a defibrillator is crucial. A defibrillator needs a shockable heart rhythm; if too much time elapses, a shockable heart rhythm will turn into a non-shockable one, and the chance of survival decreases rapidly. If a heart is not started within four minutes of cardiac arrest, a person’s chances of living are reduced by almost 80%. Even the speediest paramedic in the country would struggle to get to someone in four minutes. That is why it is crucial that defibrillators are accessible everywhere in this country. We have laws that mandate smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, seatbelts and life jackets to save lives, but not a single law mandating a simple piece of equipment that could restart the lives of 12 young people each week.
The Young Mayor of Seaford in my constituency, Jessica Batchelor—she is also here in the Gallery—at the age of 15 witnessed first-hand a close family friend die suddenly from a cardiac arrest when no defibrillator was available. As Young Mayor, she has raised thousands of pounds to put in as many defibrillators across Seaford as possible. She has lobbied me, as her local MP, to do something about this, and has worked with me on the Bill. I pay tremendous tribute to her.
The aim of the Bill is not to undermine the excellent work of existing charities, such as the British Heart Foundation with Heartstart or St John Ambulance, but to support it. I want to achieve two things. The first is to improve access by using key community facilities. We know that for survival after a cardiac arrest, time matters. Making sure that people know where their nearest defibrillator is, therefore, is key. The British Heart Foundation would like a national database, so that we can ensure not only that there is adequate defibrillator coverage but that the defibrillators are maintained and replaced where necessary.
In the Bill, we have suggested schools, sports facilities and public buildings as locations, so that there is somewhere in every town and village in the country where a local defib can be installed. But that is not enough. Defibs need to be accessible 24 hours a day. In rural communities such as my constituency, many villages do not have a school. It is therefore key that somewhere is designated and, more importantly, that people know where that place is.
Currently, there is a postcode lottery—even in schools, despite the Department for Education’s efforts, as it has pursued the option of defibrillators but has not mandated them. In England, we know of 1,389 defibrillators available in schools; in Northern Ireland, we know of one, and in Scotland we do not know of any. That is not to say that they do not exist; but without a register, no one is able to check. Although it is good news that only this month the Department of Health awarded the British Heart Foundation another £1 million to make defibrillators accessible across the country and provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, until provision is mandatory, defibrillator access will remain hit and miss.
The Bill’s second aim is to increase the use of defibrillators—it is important not just to have them but to make sure that they are used. That is why the Bill mandates training. I have talked to residents in my local villages. Many have seen their local defibrillator, but say they would be reluctant to use it, because they think that training is needed to do so. Although nothing could be further from the truth—all a person has to do is stick the two pads on someone’s chest and press the button, as the machine will tell them what to do then—without training, people are afraid to use them. The Bill’s aim is not to state that only trained people should use defibrillators but to mandate training for local communities with every installation, so that people feel confident using them.
I wonder how many Members present know how many defibrillators there are on the parliamentary estate. There are 20 in total, in the House of Lords, House of Commons, Norman Shaw North and Portcullis House, with two in Big Ben. I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, where the nearest defibrillator is to the Chamber, in case one of us needed it in an emergency; Members will be reassured to learn that it is in the Members’ Lobby.
I therefore move that the Bill be introduced, so that we can mandate that defibs are installed across the whole of the UK in publicly accessible places, and that training is available so that people know what to do in the event of a cardiac arrest, and are not afraid to use those defibs. It is crucial to support the work of our many charities, such as the Oliver King Foundation and   the British Heart Foundation, including the request for a live register to ensure that there is adequate coverage and that that coverage is maintained.
Twelve young people will die of a cardiac arrest this week, and 28,000 people will die this year. Those lives could be saved by the Bill. I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Maria Caulfield, Andy Burnham, Stephen Twigg, Mims Davies, Anna Soubry, Dr James Davies, Mike Wood, Mr Edward Vaizey, Dr Philippa Whitford, Douglas Chapman, Dr Lisa Cameron and Peter Aldous present the Bill.
Maria Caulfield accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January, and to be printed (Bill 91).

INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL

Consideration of Lords message.
After Clause 8

Robert Buckland: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords amendments 15B, 15C, 338B, 339B and 339C.
Two weeks’ ago, we considered Lords amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill. In accepting unopposed all amendments that relate directly to the subject matter of the Bill, this House demonstrated the value we all place on legislative scrutiny in the other place, and recognised the many improvements made by their lordships to this important legislation. We welcome the spirit of cross-party co-operation on this crucial matter. I would like to put on record again my admiration for the approach taken by all parties in both Houses in contributing to this landmark Bill.
Together, we have created a world-leading framework for the use of investigatory powers by law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. We have strengthened the authorisation processes and safeguards around the use of those powers, and we have created a powerful new body that is responsible for the oversight of those powers.
During that debate, however, we also gave thorough and anxious consideration to the amendments tabled by Baroness Hollins, supported by others, which sought to use the Bill as a vehicle to change the law in relation to the regulation of the press. The amendments would introduce a presumption that a court should award costs against a publisher in cases of unlawful interception if it is not part of a recognised regulator, regardless of whether or not it won a case.

Simon Hoare: Did my hon. and learned Friend see the article in The Times last week by the noble Lord Pannick? He is not necessarily always a friend to the Government on these matters, but he very clearly said that the Lords amendments should be rejected, that this was an important and well-thought-out Bill, and that the sooner we got on with it, the better.

Robert Buckland: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Lord Pannick played an important part in helping to refine other parts of the Bill, most notably on legal professional privilege. Lord Pannick said that we
“should reject the Lords’ attempt to hold such an important bill hostage on issues of press regulation that are far from central to the bill’s purposes.”
The Bill does not, and never was intended to, provide for the regulation of the press. It is about providing vital tools for our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies. The Lords amendments we are considering today differ slightly from those we debated last time. The noble Lady revised her proposal to remove the link to clause 8 in order to avoid any risk that it could have an impact on the provisions already in the Bill. She also added a six-year sunset, which she suggests means that the change could be allowed to fall away after the process of reform of press self-regulation is complete. I  thank the noble Lady for her efforts to minimise the collateral impact of her amendments and I recognise the goodwill she is showing in doing so, but I am afraid that the fundamental problem remains. The amendments are simply not appropriate at this time, or in this legislation.
The public consultation announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is on the Front Bench today, speaks directly to the concerns of those supporting the amendments. It provides everyone—whether a publisher or a victim of phone hacking, a parliamentarian, journalist, police officer or a member of the public—with their rightful opportunity to contribute to the debate on the issue of press self-regulation, an issue that affects each and every one of us in this country. The consultation document not only sets out the position but asks a series of questions to consultees. The questions are wide-ranging and allow a number of options to be explored. As is proper with a consultation, they allow consultees to express their views fully and to provide evidence to support their contentions. A number of options are set out. It is not just simply a question of commencement, but whether part of section 40 should be commenced to afford protection to members of a recognised regulator, whether to not apply the particular provisions to publishers outside a recognised regulator, and to consider whether section 40 should be fully commenced, repealed or kept under review. This is an important consultation. It allows adequate time for people who are either well-versed in the issues relating to the Leveson process, which occupied this House some years ago, or people who come new to the issue and want to have their say, bearing in mind the passage of time since the introduction of section 40 pursuant to the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
The Government have been absolutely clear that they recognise the very serious intrusion and anxiety suffered by victims of press misconduct.

Pauline Latham: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the double lock for the most intrusive warrants will achieve, and why it is so very important?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House about one of the truly innovative parts of the Bill. The mechanism proposed by Government was refined in Committee by representatives from other parties, as well as the Government. It allows for not only a politician, a Secretary of State, to make a decision about authorisation, but for that decision to be then reviewed by a judge who will apply principles of judicial review—not just Wednesbury unreasonableness, but principles relating to proportionality and human rights matters that are properly engaged in considering what we accept are serious intrusions when it comes to this type of warrantry.
The Bill is unprecedented and world-leading. The double lock represents the Government’s commitment to maintaining the balance between the need for the security and intelligence agencies and other investigative agencies to be fleet of foot when it comes to investigating   serious crime. It will ensure that, with judicial input, the interests of privacy and human rights are kept very much to the forefront of these decisions.
On press misconduct, we must ensure that victims have appropriate means of redress. The situation, however, is complex and the overall solution is far from clear. We must do our utmost to avoid unintended consequences of what I accept are well-intentioned actions.

Joanna Cherry: The hon. and learned Gentleman was referred earlier by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) to  the words of Lord Pannick. Does the Minister also agree with Lord Pannick that there can be no doubt that the amendments are within the scope of the Bill, which was one of the Government’s previous objections?

Robert Buckland: The hon. and learned Lady will know that the interpretation of scope taken in the other place is somewhat different from the one both she and I understand in this place, having both served on the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to her for the considerable number of amendments she tabled in this House. I think we have to accept that the Lords’ interpretation allowed for the introduction of these amendments. The Government rightly had issues with some of the technical deficiencies in them. I paid tribute to the efforts made by Baroness Hollins to amend the provisions to meet some of the Government’s concerns. However—this is why we seek to reject the amendments—they have no place in a Bill that relates to the regulation of investigative powers. This is all about national security and dealing with crime, whether that be child abuse, trafficking, drug dealing or any other criminality we want to deal with in society. That is why the amendments are not only out of place but pre-empt the outcome of the consultation launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Would my hon. and learned Friend not go further and say that a Bill on national security is precisely the wrong place for restrictions on the press, as it would make it look as if we were really trying to hit them hard?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill is all about balance and the importance the Executive attach to the way they seek to interfere or intrude into the private lives of individuals and to setting out clearly the criteria that must be met before they can act. It would be wrong to take any measure that sends a message that the Government wish to ride roughshod over the interests of individuals and freedom of speech. He knows that the consultation launched two weeks ago will deal with the very issues that have caused him concern over a number of years, although it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of that open process.

Richard Drax: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that phone hacking, which we hear so much about, particularly from those who support these press rules, is already a criminal offence for which people can go to jail? In addition, we have the libel laws, so anything the press does, in a major regard, is already very much covered.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind us that where we have existing mechanisms —and the criminal law is, of course, there—they must be used. To be fair to both sides of the argument, the issues about redress of grievance and the mechanism of press regulation, which he knows from his experience as a journalist has existed for years, are important ones. I know that he would be as anxious as anybody in the House to make sure that, rather than the focus being on celebrities and the like, ordinary people who end up as victims—chiefly of inaccuracies reported in the media—have a reasonable and cost-effective means of redress. He is absolutely right, however, to talk about existing mechanisms and the criminal law, and of course the criminal law was used in a significant investigation by the Metropolitan police that resulted in several convictions.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in respect of the consultation that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has set out, we have to get the balance right between respecting the freedoms of the press and the rights of innocent people who have never sought publicity but who find themselves on the wrong side of an investigation and need a low-cost method of arbitration to bring their grievances forward?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee puts it more succinctly than I did, and he is absolutely right about the balance to be struck and the need for ordinary people who might be the victims of misconduct to have access to meaningful redress of grievance, so I am grateful to him. Having been here in the previous Parliament, he and I will remember debating the Leveson process and the aftermath of the findings of Sir Brian Leveson.
Turning back to the consultation to which my hon. Friend referred, the Government have set out a clear timetable, and we have committed to responding to that consultation in a timely manner.

Jim Cunningham: Who exactly is going to be consulted?

Robert Buckland: It is a public consultation and invites comment from all members of the public, from whatever corner of the country they might come and whatever interest—it might be no interest—they represent. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to emphasise the important point that the Government would welcome as many responses as possible to the questions posed in the consultation—and not just responses but evidence to support the contentions made by those who take part.

Damian Collins: I should note that the Select Committee will be taking evidence from victims of phone hacking and press representatives and will makes its own representations to the Government through the consultation process.

Robert Buckland: The Government warmly welcome that approach. The work of the Select Committee—indeed all Select Committees—is invaluable and carries real weight, and the Government will consider it carefully  when the consultation responses are assessed by the Secretary of State and those who serve her in the Department.
After the Government’s response, there will be ample opportunity for the House and the other place to consider and debate it in due course. As I said earlier, however, now is not the time to do so. The Bill, which we have all recognised is so important to our collective security, should not, with the greatest of respect, be used to force that debate.

Diane Abbott: I am glad to rise in support, once again, of these very important amendments. I believe that any member of the public who just heard the Solicitor General’s speech will be puzzled about the Government’s resistance to implementing an aspect of Leveson that they agreed to in principle some time ago.
Labour fully supports the Lords amendments and has consistently and genuinely called for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full. A new system of independent self-regulation was agreed by the three main political parties in 2013, following extensive consultation with victims of press intrusion, and Labour believes that the promises made to them should be honoured. If the best that the Government can come up with is that hoary old doctrine of unripe time—“It’s a good idea but not now”—they must be a little desperate. It is disappointing that we have to speak to the amendments yet again to get the Government to honour their agreements. It is a breach of the cross-party agreement, and breaks promises made by the House to the victims.
Lords amendment 15B would not be necessary had the Government fulfilled their stated commitment to implement section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which they have promised to do innumerable times. Happily, the amendment goes further than section 40 and would not require ministerial approval, meaning that it would automatically implement section 40 in relation to phone hacking claims. This would restate the clear intention of Parliament as previously expressed in 2013. Ministers have talked about riding roughshod. The Society of Editors, the National Union of Journalists, with the backing of the TUC, and many others concerned with the freedom of the press, have said that there is the potential to ride roughshod over freedoms.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady explain one point about the amendment? Why should the press be punished if it is not in fact guilty of phone hacking?

Diane Abbott: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will complete my next paragraph and then address his point.
The ability of journalists to protect their sources  is a vital part of a functioning democracy. It means whistleblowers, important sources and others can divulge matters sometimes of the utmost public interest—there is a host of whistleblowers in the NHS, to take just one example, and there have been important whistleblowers in almost every area of public life. However, we have to once again flag up the powers in the Bill—although it is a Bill we support—and say that simply being able to identify internet records without ever examining the content would potentially allow the identification of whistleblowers in many cases. This represents a potential  infringement of civil liberties, a riding roughshod over civil liberties and a riding roughshod over the freedom that ultimately benefits us all.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), if the Government do not want to implement this aspect of Leveson and if they do not think it necessary, why have they on so many occasions, including to the victims themselves, promised to do so?
The claim that these measures will impinge on the freedom of the press is factually inaccurate. Instead, they would allow for a low-cost and timely mechanism for redress on behalf of those who have been or believe themselves to have been mistreated or maligned by the press. I repeat the point that was made earlier: this is not about celebrities, but about ordinary people who through no fault of their own get caught up in the maw of the tabloid press and have to put up with seeing their picture appearing on the front page of tabloid newspapers day after day—often on the basis of misinterpreted tips from the police force. These people need to be able to get redress. That is why we support the amendments.
This amendment 15B, which the Government intend to vote down, was proposed and improved in the House of Lords by the Cross Bencher Baroness Hollins and overwhelmingly passed. It would implement the same provisions as are contained in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in respect of claims against media organisations over phone hacking and other unlawful interception of communications. While there is a free-for-all by ignoring Leveson and a failure to implement section 40, the most irresponsible practices of the press, which can ruin the lives of ordinary people, will go unchecked without any recourse—except for celebrities and the ultra-rich, who can afford libel lawyers.
It was always envisaged that as soon as pending legal proceedings were complete, we would see the second phase of the Leveson inquiry. The Minister had a lot to say about the consultation. Does he remember that Leveson lasted over two years and cost £5.4 million in total? Why, having spent so much money and so much time—and particularly the time of so many distinguished lawyers—why on earth do we need another consultation? Opposition Members believe that this is merely a stalling mechanism, and we think that the Government’s continuing to stall on this issue is disrespectful of, and inappropriate for, the ordinary victims of phone hacking.

Richard Drax: The hon. Lady mentions phone hacking again, so let me remind her that phone hacking is an illegal act. People go to jail for it. Will she acknowledge that this is already a criminal offence?

Diane Abbott: It may be a criminal offence, but the entire House knows that time after time, tabloid editors and their staff engaged in phone hacking, betting that the people whose privacy was being infringed would not have the money or the knowledge or the social capital to take them to court.
This consultation is the Government’s most recent attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. The victims of phone hacking—many of whose lives have been ruined—are being forced to relive the traumatic experiences of Leveson. The understanding was that so  many millions of pounds were spent and so many top-flight lawyers engaged in order to arrive at a conclusion on these issues—not so that the Government could continue to stall.

Joanna Cherry: Does the hon. Lady agree that the virtue of Leveson was that it was an inquiry held in public with an independent judge in the chair? The problem with the Government’s consultation is that it will effectively put politicians—and Government politicians—in the chair to re-run these issues in private?

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that very important point. Leveson was public and engaged, and it expressed widespread concern. With millions spent on Leveson, the Government now propose a private, secret consultation.
The Minister said that this set of amendments was inappropriate. He has said that he opposes them because of the doctrine of unripe time. I put it to Members that it is for the House to decide whether these amendments are appropriate and timely. I support the Lords amendments.

Edward Garnier: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his resistance to the Lords amendments, which was based on principle rather than over-excitement or hyperbole. It seems to me that the motion put forward in the other place—no doubt well intentioned—does not entirely cover the justice of the case. Before I move on to the main part of my argument, I would like to declare an interest, in that I have some 40 or 45 years’ experience as a member of the media and libel Bar.
The first Lords amendment proposes a new clause to be inserted after clause 8, and I am particularly disturbed by one or two aspects of it. I fully appreciate that as a matter of policy and politics, we in the House, the Government and Parliament generally frequently make use of what I would call the nudge system of trying to encourage people to be of better behaviour. We introduce laws that seek to persuade people not to behave in an antisocial or criminal manner. Broadly, it is the use of incentives to encourage better behaviour, and I have a suspicion that that is what is behind the Leveson report and their Lordships’ proposed new clause.
In some respects, the provision is in the wrong place. The Bill is about investigatory powers and although I accept and applaud the ingenuity of those who introduced the new clause in the other place, I believe that introducing it into this important Bill, though understandable, is not the best place for them to have done so. They risk imperilling the policy behind the Investigatory Powers Bill without advancing their own cause in respect of those grievously and adversely affected by phone hacking.
While the proposed new clause is, on the face of it,  of course related to phone hacking, it seems to me  that it is not limited to phone hacking. If we look at subsection (1)(b), we see that the defendant in question needs to be “a relevant publisher”—that is fair enough—but if we look at subsection (1)(c), we find that it deals with claims
“related to the publication of news-related material.”
It may be that the news-related material has come as a consequence of phone hacking, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has correctly pointed out, phone hacking is already a crime and the criminal justice system is already able to get a grip on it. When it comes to the consequences of hacking someone’s phone, there could be a public interest defence to the criminal charge of phone hacking. The newspaper might publish material that a claimant says is in breach of his rights of privacy or a misuse of private information or a breach of confidence, or it could amount to a defamation. None of those additional civil claims is covered by this nudge or incentive proposal. I think that we need to be wary lest a legitimate exposure of misconduct on the part of, say, a public authority or a person in the public sphere might be inhibited by this no doubt well-intentioned new clause.
The first point that I would make to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General is that subsection (1) of the new clause does not limit the nudging or the incentives to the misdemeanour of phone hacking. It goes beyond that, and in doing so, it seems to me, could put a defendant newspaper or publisher in danger of being penalised for doing what might turn out to have been the right thing. As I said a moment ago, it might well be that the initial phone hacking was on the face of it criminal, but there might be a defence for it, and, moreover, the product—the fruit—of that phone hacking, legitimised because it was in the public interest, might lead to a further claim in a cause of action under civil law.
The defendant publisher might win the case, because what had been written might be true, and it might not be against the public interest to publish the confidential information because it had exposed iniquity or something of that nature. The defendant newspaper—if it is a newspaper—should therefore be entitled to win the case and defeat the claim. Under the new clause, however, although the claim had been defeated and the publishing defendant had won the case, the defendant would be required to pay the undeserving claimant’s costs as well as its own because the defendant might not be a member of some approved regulator.

Joanna Cherry: I am listening with great care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. May I suggest to him that the situation that he has just described is covered by the proviso in subsection (3)(b) of the new clause proposed in Lords amendment 15C, which states that the court may take account of whether
“it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case”
to make a different award of costs? May I suggest that in the circumstances that he has described, the “just and equitable” exception would kick in, and a newspaper that had a valid defence and had revealed iniquity as a result of hacking could pray it in aid?

Edward Garnier: It might if both new clauses became law, but it might not if the new clause to which the hon. and learned Lady has referred did not become law, and we were left with only the one with which I am dealing.
My second point is this. Why should a well-intentioned and successful defendant publisher have to risk the expense of successfully defending a claim and then having to pay the costs of the unsuccessful claimant?  That strikes me as unjust. The House is famous for passing laws that are laden—replete—with unintended consequences. It seems to me, however, that when an amendment paper contains a proposal that will clearly lead to a problem—although I am not suggesting that it would be an insoluble problem—we would be foolish not to warn the Government against it. I am delighted to see that the Government seem to have mustered their forces and thinking processes in such a way that an unjust law will not be passed.
When I spoke in the House following the publication of the Leveson report, I was sufficiently pompous and self-confident to rebuke Members who thought that the inquiry, and the report that followed it, meant that there would be state regulation of the press. There will be no such thing as a consequence of the Leveson inquiry. However, I feel that I am entitled to warn Members who, like me, thoroughly disapprove of illegal phone hacking not to assume that once the words “phone hacking” have been uttered, that permits the House, the Government and the courts to rain down on successful, innocent and well-intentioned defendant publishers the burden of the costs of successfully defending a claim.
It should be borne in mind that defendants do not choose to be defendants. Of course they choose to publish the material that they have got hold of, but it is the claimant who feels obliged, or makes the choice, to sue the defendant. To be sued as a defendant is tedious enough, but to be sued as a defendant, to win, and then to be required to pay the costs of the unmeritorious claim must surely constitute even more of a punishment.

Oliver Letwin: Is there not another choice that the media can make? Can they not choose to subscribe to a compliant regulator and thereby avoid the need for all the regulation and legislation that we do not want to see in the Bill?

Edward Garnier: Of course I understand what my right hon. Friend has said. He is one of the most sophisticated proponents of the “nudge” or incentive system of lawmaking, and I salute him for that. I sometimes wonder, however, whether it is a good idea to use the force of what are essentially the punitive elements of the legal system to encourage innocent defendants to pay the costs of unmeritorious claims. Yes, in a perfect world we would all settle our disputes, and people would not even provoke disputes in the first place; but to be compelled, on penalty of having to pay out large sums in legal costs, to join an organisation of which one either does not approve for one reason or another, or does not wish to join for one reason or another, strikes me as unjust.
I have been a victim of, shall we say, stupid conduct by the press. It is very annoying. I have seen others, not only my friends and colleagues but people for whom I have acted, having to deal with the misconduct of the media. But I would rather have a system which recognised justice—

Lyn Brown: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see a difference between himself—as he has already told us, he is a leading advocate at the criminal Bar dealing with these matters  on a day-to-day basis to earn his crust—and someone who does not have those advantages and who is caught in the same snare?

Edward Garnier: I do not wish to be rude to the hon. Lady, but I did not say any of those things. I am not a leading member of the criminal Bar. I happened for some little while to be a member of the media and defamation Bar, which may be a distinction without a difference as far as she is concerned. [Interruption.] She may disagree with me—she may disagree with me vehemently—but what we are trying to do is to pass good law. If my colleagues on the Front Bench, and those around me, disagree with me, fine: go ahead and disagree with me.

Bill Wiggin: We do.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend clearly does.

Bill Wiggin: I absolutely disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I have been sitting here listening to him carefully, but I cannot think of any other industry that does not offer any sort of guarantee. If people make faulty washing machines, they replace them, but if they publish stories about people, they have already made their money by the time they end up being sued, and that is why the papers have to bear some of the cost.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend’s intervention demonstrates to me that I have not made myself clear. What I am suggesting is that it is wrong for a claimant who has lost his case to demand the costs from the successful defendant. I am not suggesting that if I make a faulty washing machine, I should not be liable, under law or morally, to put the matter right. However, if I have made a good washing machine, the fact that my hon. Friend does not like the colour of it, or the fact that it revolves in any number of ways—[Interruption.] I am in danger, Madam Deputy Speaker, of reducing the level of the debate to something that it should not be. I will stop now, because I think I have made the points that I wish to make with sufficient clarity. Some will agree with me and some will not, but I urge the Government to be very wary about passing unjust laws for very well-motivated purposes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on behalf of the Scottish National party, let me say that we have 19 minutes left in this very important debate and I have noticed several accomplished and learned colleagues are attempting to catch my eye. I know they are as capable of making a good argument in three minutes as in 15 minutes, and I implore them to take the former course.

Joanna Cherry: I rise to support the shadow Home Secretary and her motion to accept these amendments. I will keep my comments brief. I will not go into the Scottish angle because I covered that in some detail  last time.
The other place is clearly seeking to use these amendments to bring pressure on the UK Government to bring section 40 into force. The SNP is happy to lend its support to that effort, particularly as these amendments would afford protection and legal redress for those who suffer as a result of the most egregious sort of interception without legal authority when phone hacking is carried out by newspapers. Those who have not hacked, do not hack and do not intend to hack have nothing to fear from these provisions. Contrary to what has been said in the newspapers by many who advocate on behalf of wealthy newspaper proprietors and contrary to what has been said by some Government Members, there is a get-out clause in these provisions where a newspaper is sued unfairly and unjustly, and that is the just and equitable exception. We have to trust that the courts will implement that properly, as we trust them daily to implement justice and equity.
In the other place Baroness Hollins pointed out what this is really about. A widespread criminal conspiracy involving more than one newspaper group lasted, and was covered up, for many years. It was combined with unexplained failures in police and prosecution action and allegations of political involvement in a cover-up. As a result, there was a public inquiry, which came to conclusions that were supported cross-party in this House. The Government committed to implementing them; they are now failing to do so. As I said in an intervention, they are seeking to replace the public semi-judicial inquiry that was Leveson with a consultation in which the Government will consider proposals behind closed doors without the benefit of submissions and evidence being given in public, and that is not right.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. and learned Lady recall that the reason we reached the agreement we did was a determination that politicians should have no role in this, so does she share my frustration that we are here again in November 2016 still discussing this?

Joanna Cherry: I agree. I was not here when these matters were previously discussed in this House but I followed that closely and it was all about taking politicians out of the mix. The Government’s consultation is putting politicians into the driving seat—and Government politicians at that. That is exactly what many of us did not want to happen, and it is what Leveson said should not happen.
I support these amendments because they now stand alone and do not impinge on the other provisions of the Bill. As Lord Pannick said in the House of Lords, these amendments are now in scope. They are supplementary to what is there already and they do not detract from the security issues in the Bill. I believe these two points meet many of the objections put forward by Ministers.
The amendments are on point and relate to the subject matter of the Bill because they deal with the consequences of unlawful interceptions of communications. At the risk of tooting the SNP’s trumpet too often, I simply remind the House again that new clause 8 came into the Bill as a result of a suggestion made by me  and my colleague in the Bill Committee, my hon.  Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
These amendments will apply to new and old phone hacking claims alike, but they are not objectionable as retrospective because in considering how to deal with costs the court must look to the issue of whether the defendant was registered with an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced.
I believe the remaining objections to the amendments are misplaced. If the Government are concerned about these amendments causing delay to the passage of this important Bill, all they need to do is bite the bullet and implement section 40 and then we can forget about the amendments, and I invite them to do that.

Bill Wiggin: In all the years I have been here, I have never before found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) so I am deeply unhappy about this debate and the fact that I have been put in this position.
I also feel very uncomfortable with some of the things my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has said, because I know that in his heart he, like me, would like to see low-cost arbitration. That is why I am so pleased with the Culture Secretary and the wonderful steps she has taken to keep people like me onside—people who passionately care about redress for ordinary people. This is the 21st century; it is the age of information and that is why the quality of information is so critical. We as a Government cannot police the media, and I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) understood that when he put forward his royal commission proposals, but we must do our bit to ensure the quality of information is good enough, and at the moment it is not.

Richard Drax: What plans does my hon. Friend have for the internet, which is not governed by these measures and on which reprehensible things are said every second of every day?

Bill Wiggin: The internet is not policed and that is as it should be, but my hon. Friend has to understand why people have stopped reading newspapers and take their news from the internet now. There is a choice, and the choice they can make is to favour the sources they believe in. That presents a different set of challenges to the individual than having a quality media.
I absolutely believe in the freedom of the press, but not in the irresponsibility of the press. That is why I welcomed the conclusions to the Leveson inquiry and why I welcome the Secretary of State’s inquiries. We have to get the balance right between policing and responsibility, and while this Bill is about security and information I do not agree that it is an inappropriate place to bring forward this debate. Given what the Government have agreed to do, I think we should take full advantage of that, but remember that the people who are most likely to contribute are those who write for a living and are therefore most likely to be journalists. It will be difficult for the Government to maintain that balance of common sense, but I have absolute confidence that they will achieve it.

Damian Collins: First, I echo what Members have said across the House about the importance of a free press and a press both acting freely and speaking with confidence to the powerful. We  have seen the role of British investigative journalism in taking on corruption in international sport, where it could without fear or favour pursue its investigations and therefore brought down powerful and mighty people. We do not want that to be jeopardised in any way. At the same time we should be conscious that if we just implement the section 40 provisions as they currently stand, some of the biggest victims would be small newspapers and magazines that have never been part of these bigger things. We should also at this time reflect on the nature and purpose of section 40. That is why I believe the Secretary of State is right to have a further consultation.
The idea was not necessarily that the section would be required; the hope was that the press would seek recognition through a recognised authority and have a proper, robust system of self-regulation recognised by the press recognition panel. The press have decided not to do go down that path. Many of them have set up the Independent Press Standards Organisation as their own regulator. They do not wish to see recognition, which in itself would solve the problem; if IPSO had sought recognition we would not be having this debate about costs and extra damages, but it has not sought that. So this should be a time to see whether IPSO can become recognised, with public confidence, as being Leveson-compliant, meeting the standards and providing, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) said, the right level of proper low-cost arbitration. Section 40 is really about saying there must be a robust system of self- regulation and low-cost arbitration and if that cannot be put in place the alternative is someone going to court and the industry having to pick up the costs in the courts, rather than paying for the arbitration system.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the demands that the nation puts on the media would be satisfied if IPSO were to establish the low-cost arbitration, even if it did not formally seek recognition? Does he agree that most Members would be satisfied with that as an answer?

Damian Collins: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If such an accessible arbitration system were to be established—which would involve going further than the pilot scheme—it would be churlish of the House to ignore that progress and to insist on the point of principle involving going before the recognition panel. This matter should be pursued, and that is why it is right to use the consultation process to explore what more can be done to ensure that IPSO is compliant, that it offers the access to low-cost arbitration that the public want, and that it can win public respect as an effective means of self-regulation for the press.

Edward Argar: I rise briefly to express my agreement with the Solicitor General and particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). A vibrant, responsible local press that is able to speak freely and report stories within the law is a pillar of our democracy. It is something we should be proud of and always strive to protect. What concerns me, and the press, is the potential for the press to have done nothing wrong—having not misreported a story or wronged an individual—and yet to find itself on the receiving end of costs that threaten its existence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has eloquently set out, no one disputes that there should be a way for people who have been genuinely wronged by the press to have access to affordable and effective redress. It is beyond doubt that this need must be addressed. To that end, I fully support the approach put forward by the Solicitor General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in undertaking a further consultation to see whether a way forward can be found that strikes the right balance. The Secretary of State has adopted an open, measured, sensible and appropriate approach to implementing our clear determination to provide redress while safeguarding the freedoms and viability of our hugely precious local press.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is an absolutely dreadful amendment and it should be thrown out, rejected and sent back to the House of Lords. It is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to punish those who might be innocent and to fine them for telling the truth and for saying things that people in power do not like. This amendment goes to the heart of our free press, and it should be thrown in the bin. IMPRESS is already an organisation of ill repute, founded, funded and paid for by somebody who is known to us only because of his misdeeds. A degenerate libertine has provided all the money for IMPRESS, which only the most junior newspapers will sign up to. It is a dreadful body.
We should maintain the freedom of our press to help us with our liberties. We have only to look at the policeman who went to prison a few weeks ago. He successfully sued the press in the 1990s, but it turned out that he was in fact a child molester. Whenever we put constraints on the press, we help the powerful to get away with misdeeds. This House should stand up for freedom. It should stand up for liberty and it should reject the unelected House of Lords trying to prevent scandal from being reported freely.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who was most eloquent. I have a disadvantage in following such eloquence with a short speech. I believe that I have just a few minutes left. I must declare an interest in that I was a journalist for 17 years. Perhaps I saw a little bit of the worst, but most of it was good. It is the local and regional press—the majority of our press today—that I am concerned about. It simply will not be able to take the risk of reporting at local level, albeit accurately and fairly, lest it should incur a costly exercise in court, and that is not acceptable.
In the first week of my career, the editor called me in and said, “Richard, you cannot go far wrong if you report fairly and accurately.” I agree with other hon. Members who have said that the message to the editors must be that they should report fairly, accurately and truthfully. Truth is the biggest sword of defence for the press. As my editor said: if in doubt, leave it out. I implore all editors who want a free press, as I and many other hon. Members do, to behave honourably, truthfully and in good faith. If they cannot report something that they long to report because they know it will result in a huge sale of newspapers, I suggest that they delay publication until they have the facts.
I am here to defend the press, because the press in this country is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. I do not want IPSO to sign up to the royal charter, which represents state intrusion, not through the back door but quite openly. As I understand it—I hope that I am reporting the facts correctly here—IPSO is considering a system of low-cost arbitration. But what is low-cost arbitration? I suspect that local newspapers and those taking cases against them often employ expensive QCs. How do we cap the cost? I am not quite sure what “low-cost arbitration” means.
I agree that if a grievance is found to be justified, and the press is found to have got its facts wrong, it has a duty to publish that inaccuracy on its front page and to give it the same prominence as it gave to the original story on its inside pages or perhaps its front page. Any editor worth his salt should drag in the journalist responsible and say, “Enough is enough.” The free press: that is what we are here for and that is what I am fighting for. I totally back the Government in not supporting this Lords amendment.

Robert Buckland: We have heard many heartfelt contributions to this debate from Members on both sides of the House and I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Time does not permit me—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking the leave of the House to respond to the debate.

Robert Buckland: I certainly am. I seek the leave of the House to respond to the debate, but time does not permit me to say much more.

Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his excellent brevity.
Question put,
The House divided:
Ayes 295, Noes 245.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 15B, 15C, 338B, 339B and 339C.
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 1 November).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;
That Ms Diane Abbott, Robert Buckland, Joanna Cherry, Nic Dakin, Andrew Griffiths, Andrew Stephenson and Matt Warman be members of the Committee;
That Robert Buckland be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Eleanor Laing: Order. If Members are leaving the Chamber following the previous business, I hope that they will have the courtesy to be quiet while we begin the next business.

SMALL CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND CHILDCARE PAYMENTS BILL

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.
New Clause 1

Prevention of fraud and abuse of small donations scheme

‘(1) The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 16, insert the following—
“16A Prevention of fraud and abuse of small donations scheme
(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must, in respect of each tax year beginning with 2017-18, prepare an annual report specifying—
(a) the number of penalties imposed under this Act,
(b) the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties,
(c) its assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme, and
(d) its assessment of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse.
(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(3) In this section, “the gift aid matching rule” has the same meaning as in section 14(3).” —(Rebecca Long Bailey.)
This new clause requires HMRC to indicate how, each tax year, it has exercised its powers to impose penalties and in what circumstances and to provide an assessment of evidence on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2— Review of operation of gift aid matching rule—
‘(1) The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 16, insert the following—
“16A Review of operation of gift aid matching rule
(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, no later than the end of the 2017-18 tax year, undertake a review of the operation of the gift aid matching rule.
(2) As part of the review of under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consult charities and other organisations that he considers relevant about—
(a) the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse, and
(b) the appropriateness of the Treasury exercising its order-making powers under section 14(2).
(3) A report of the review undertaken in accordance with this section must be laid before each House of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(4) In this section, “the gift aid matching rule” has the same meaning as in section 14(3).”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the gift aid matching rule and to consult charities and other organisations on the appropriateness of exercising the Treasury’s  powers to amend or abolish that rule which limits the amount of top-up payments to which a charity is entitled by reference to the amount of gifts made to the charity in respect of which it has made successful gift aid exemption claims.
New clause 3—Regulations on local branches and groups—
‘(1) The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 5(1) (general provisions on meaning of “connected”), insert—
“(1A) This section is subject to the provisions of regulations made under section 5A (regulations on local branches and groups).”
(3) After section 5, insert the following—
“5A Regulations on local branches and groups
(1) The Treasury shall by regulations prescribe organisations in which local or regional branches or groups may not be considered to be connected for the purposes of sections 4 and 5.
(2) The Treasury shall publish the first set of draft regulations made under subsection (1) no later than 31 October 2017.
(3) Before publishing draft regulations under this section, the Treasury shall consult—
(a) the Scout Association;
(b) the Guide Association;
(c) the Combined Cadet Force Association; and
(d) such other organisations as appear to the Treasury to be relevant.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to identify organisations with local or regional branch or group structures in order that those local and regional branches or groups can be separately eligible under the scheme, and to consult certain organisations about the regulations in draft.
New clause 4—Abolition of Gift Aid donations threshold—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must carry out an assessment of the impact on charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs of amending the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme so as to remove the 10% Gift Aid donations threshold that must be met in order to access the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme, including an assessment of the differential impact on different sizes of charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs concerned.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
Charities and CASCs must give gift aid exemption claims on donations received in order to make a claim under the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme. The total gift aid donations must be at least 10% of the amount of the small donations on which top-up payments are claimed. This new clause would require the Chancellor to assess the impact of abolishing this requirement.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: New clause 1 would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to publish in each tax year a report detailing the number of penalties imposed under the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties; HMRC’s assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or have operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme; and an assessment of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse. New clause 2 would require the Government to conduct a review of the operation of the gift aid matching rule, which is the rule that the total gift aid donations operation for a charity must be 10% or more of the amount of small donations  on which top-up payments are made. The new clause stipulates that the Chancellor should consult charities and other relevant organisations about the role of the matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse, and the appropriateness of exercising the Treasury’s powers to amend or abolish the rule. New clause 4, which was tabled by the Scottish National party, would also require the Chancellor to assess the impact of abolishing the matching requirement.
During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have had extensive debates about the matching requirement—rightly so, because it is the biggest issue affecting the efficacy of the scheme, according to the charities that use it. The sector thinks broadly that the requirement is arbitrary and is a significant barrier to charities being eligible for the scheme. A consultation with members of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showed that it is the most significant barrier to access for smaller organisations. The survey found that 50% of respondents with an income under £10,000 wanted the removal or reduction of the matching requirement.
Ahead of Second Reading, the NCVO argued that the Government have presented no evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the matching requirement is a necessary mechanism to prevent fraud and error, or that the matching ratio of 1:10 is the minimum necessary to achieve this objective. Despite considerable debate on this matter, we have got all the way to Report and the Government have still failed to provide any evidence that the matching requirement works. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that today.
New clause 2 would force the Government to produce evidence in the form of a review and report on the operation of the gift aid matching rule, and whether it should be changed or removed entirely. New clause 4 would require a similar review, so we will be happy to support that measure. I would rather not have to press our new clauses 1 and 2 to a Division unless we have to. They call for a review of something that the charity sector says is hindering the scheme. I hope for some movement from the Minister on the issue today, but if the SNP’s new clause is pressed to a Division, we will support it wholeheartedly, as it reflects many of the principles that we have outlined in new clauses 1 and 2.
I am sure that the Minister will repeat her argument that the matching requirement is necessary to prevent fraud. I agree that we need measures to safeguard against such abuses. The Charity Commission has provided figures showing the extent of fraud in the charity sector. In 2014-15, 417 serious incidents involving fraud and/or theft or the misapplication of funds were reported by charities to the commission, and 255 operational compliance cases were completed. As Members are aware, just last week the commission announced in a press release that it was investigating the charity Our Local Heroes Foundation. According to the commission, it had received information about a proposed disposal of land owned by the charity, concerns regarding the founder of the charity receiving significant personal benefit through the charity, and a complaint that the charity was receiving only 20% of funds raised through a fundraising company.
This is just one case, but it is a sad example of charities being used as vehicles for tax avoidance and fraud. It is therefore incumbent on us to make it as hard as possible to abuse charitable status. That was why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require a review  of the prevention of fraud and abuse in the small donations scheme. As I said, the review would need to address the number of penalties imposed under the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties. It should include Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or have operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme, and HMRC’s assessment of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse.
The Government’s guidance on the scheme explains that if a charity or community amateur sports club
“incurs a penalty in respect of an incorrect Gift Aid claim or GASDS”—
gift aid small donations scheme—
“claim, it won’t be eligible for the scheme both for the tax year in which the incorrect claim was made and in the following tax year.”
I would argue that the link between gift aid and the scheme is stronger than the matching requirement. Charities claiming gift aid can still be, and indeed have been, fraudulent organisations, so simply having a monetary link to the gift aid is not enough. This provision—that if a gift aid claim is wrong, a charity cannot claim through the scheme for that tax year and the following tax year—seems to be a stronger safeguard against fraudulent organisations than the matching requirement. Things might be more complex than that, but a review would clearly be beneficial, because we could assess where the matching requirement actually works effectively. In that way, the Government and the charities sector would be able to see clearly which anti-fraud measures were most effective.
Let me turn now to new clause 3, which deals with a different matter. Members and the Minister will remember that we made the case in Committee that certain groups—the Girl Guides, the Scouts, and the Army, Navy and Air Force cadet groups—were not able to get the full benefit of the small donations scheme. That was after feedback from the respective charities’ representatives that, because of the structure of the groups, they were able to make only one claim for the entirety of the group, even though individual groups within them fund themselves.
The Minister responded that the measure proposed in Committee was unnecessary because the Bill allowed for what it proposed. She neatly illustrated why she would reject it—because, at the time, it carved out a few selected charities—but we want provisions to benefit a broad range of charities, some of which were not named in the original new clause tabled in Committee.
New clause 3 attempts to address the Minister’s points by allowing the Treasury to make regulations to exempt certain organisations from the connected charities rules. The Government would have to consult the Scout Association, the Guide Association and the Combined Cadet Force Association, in particular, before publishing those regulations. The Minister said she would reflect on the points raised in Committee, so I hope that she will accept the new clause today. It would not carve out a few selected charities, but give the Government the power to consult organisations that are mistakenly affected by the connected charities rules. It would, therefore, make the scheme run more smoothly, which is, after all, the point of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the rationale behind the new clauses and recognises that we are genuinely trying to achieve the same end: to make the gift aid small donations scheme work as well as possible for as many charities as possible. I hope that the new clauses will be accepted. We will not press new clauses 1 and 2 to a vote, but we will divide the House on new clause 3, and we will support new clause 4 should the SNP choose to press it to a Division.

Susan Elan Jones: I speak in support of the points made by our shadow Minister about new clauses 1 and 2, which deal practically with the issue of fraud and put the onus very simply on HMRC to establish the extent of the problem. The difficulty facing the voluntary sector is that even with the £15 million of additional support in the Bill, the gift aid small donations scheme will distribute roughly £40 million, which is only about a third of the £115 million that was, according to Government opinion, projected to be distributed next year. This scheme could and should be growing. It is important because it helps and develops the smallest charities, and that must continue.
In speaking to new clause 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) referred to the matching arrangements. I stand here with a certain amount of hope, because I remember that four years ago, when the first version of this Bill was born, the Government proposed 1:1 matching, and now we see matching of 1:10. All we—and, more significantly, many charities and charitable bodies’ organisations—respectfully ask is that the Government consider how sacrosanct that 1:10 matching rule is. That is well put in our new clause 2 and in new clause 4, which was tabled by the SNP.
I hope that the Minister will consider these points. A few years ago in this Chamber, we were told that such provisions could not possibly include contactless payments. The Government moved on that, and they moved on the rate of matching. To be optimistic, as we all want this Bill to work, I very much hope that the Government will shift a little on these issues too.

Kirsty Blackman: I rise to speak to new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), although I shall touch on the other new clauses in the group.
New clause 1, which would require HMRC to present an annual report, is reasonable and sensible. I was surprised by the amount of discussion we had in Committee and elsewhere about the possibility of charities using such a scheme for fraudulent purposes. Perhaps I was being naive as that had not crossed my mind a great deal, but apparently people are genuinely concerned about it. If the Government were to take on board Labour’s proposal in new clause 1, it would help to allay the fears of the general public about how charities are acting. I think that only a very small minority of charities are set up to act fraudulently, and the publication of such information would help to ensure that the public are aware of that.
New clause 2, not dissimilarly from a number of measures that we discussed in Committee, deals with the matching requirement. I will come on to that later. I understand why Labour Members have tabled new clause 3,  which addresses local organisations that, unfortunately, are caught by some aspects of the way in which the Bill is written. I appreciate that that is an issue, so my colleagues and I will support Labour Members if they press it to a vote.
New clause 4 relates to the matching requirement and the associated threshold. When the first draft of the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, the Government supported a different matching requirement from what was eventually approved. During the consideration of that Bill, they also changed the proposals on the matching requirement so that they could edit it in the future, if necessary. That was a result of pressure by charities and organisations that had raised concerns about the arbitrary nature of the level that was chosen for the matching requirement.
I appreciate that the Government have moved on this in the past, but charities are now asking them to move further. As the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising and the Small Charities Coalition produced a paper saying that it was vital that the matching requirement was changed or removed. That is why we have brought the proposal before the House. Although we discussed this in Committee, we still feel that the Government need to look at it, while appreciating that they have the power to do so outwith this Bill.
If the Government do not accept the new clause, I would very much appreciate it if they considered the proposal in the future. This is not just about the SNP; our proposal is widely supported, including by the Labour party and by charities across the UK such as the Churches Legislation Advisory Service and the Charity Tax Group. If fears can be allayed about fraud, in particular, it would be reasonable for the Government to take some steps towards change. I do not want to talk for long, but I would appreciate it if the Government would seriously consider taking up this proposal. If they do not agree to the new clause, I hope that they will at least commit to looking at it at some point in the future.

Jane Ellison: I appreciate the spirit in which the new clauses have been spoken to, because we are all here for one purpose, which is to make sure that the Bill works as well as possible for the benefit of as many charities as possible. In responding to this short debate, I will try to offer evidence of the reasons why we cannot, or do not think that it is right to, accept the new clauses.
New clause 1 would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to publish every year an analysis of the number of penalties imposed; the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of those penalties; an assessment of the number of charities set up with the primary purpose of accessing the small donations scheme; and an assessment of the efficacy of the matching rule in preventing fraud. That relates to the general debate that we have had throughout the Bill’s progress about how we prevent fraud and a minority of people from exploiting the rules.
New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the matching rule—the same is true, as we have just heard, of new clause 4—in consultation with the charity sector, and to lay a copy of the report by the end of the 2017-18 tax year.
New clause 3 seeks a power to prescribe by regulations an exemption for certain charities from the connected charities provision. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), is right to say that we debated that proposal in Committee and that I undertook to reflect on it. I will tell her where I have got to shortly. The new clause would require the Treasury to consult the Scouts, Guides, military cadet groups and other organisations before publishing draft regulations on or before 31 October 2017.

Jim Cunningham: On consultation, the Minister has mentioned the Scouts and a number of other organisations, but has she considered consulting the Brethren? I am sure that she will recall that, during the last Parliament, the Brethren lost its charity status for a while and there was a large number of debates.

Jane Ellison: Obviously, I was not in this post at the time, but I recall someone in my constituency drawing my attention to that. As I will come on to say, the consultation process leading up to the Bill was exhaustive, but I also hope to reassure the House that the ongoing consultation with people who have an interest in the issue is significant on the part of HMRC and the departmental team led by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who has responsibility for civil society. It is fair to say that we have a good, constructive and ongoing dialogue with the charity sector and those affected by the provisions, but I acknowledge that there was a slightly different concern in relation to the group mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
New clause 4 proposes that an assessment be put before the House within six months of the passing of the Bill, and it centres on the gift aid matching requirement and its impact on charities of different sizes. We debated similar amendments in Committee and, although I accepted that they were well intended, I decided that they were unnecessary, so it will probably not surprise the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who spoke on behalf of the SNP, that I will make some of the same points again today, but I hope to build on what I said in Committee.
New clause 1 concerns fraud—a vital issue that we have discussed a number of times and that we take very seriously. I am grateful to Opposition Members for giving us the opportunity to return to this important subject. I welcome, as I did in Committee, the fact that we have a cross-party consensus on protecting the gift aid small donations scheme from fraudulent attack. Opposition Members have raised on several occasions the efficacy of the matching scheme as a deterrent against fraud, and they asked us on Second Reading and in Committee to prove that the matching rule prevents fraud. At each stage, particularly in the debate on the matter in Committee, I drew the House’s attention to a few examples of the shocking abuses of charitable  status that have resulted in criminal convictions this year alone. Sadly, I have a reasonably extensive list of quite recent events, but I sense that I do not need to persuade people that fraud does happen in a minority of cases.
I am not sure exactly what further evidence Opposition Members would like me to provide. As I said in Committee, the Government are, in essence, being asked to prove a negative. That is a risky proposition, and I will illustrate why. If the suggestion is that the Government should adopt a wait-and-see approach, remove all the protections and then attempt to close the loopholes when fraudulent attacks take place, I cannot agree that that is the right approach. Opening up the scheme to abuse would be irresponsible, could waste a large amount of public money and—probably most importantly—could cause untold damage to the reputation of our fantastic charity sector. I cannot recommend that course of action to the House.
To be clear, we know that the majority of charities are honest. They are run by dedicated and trustworthy people—the sort of people whom we all know in our constituencies. For the fraudsters, however, nothing is sacred. It is a sad fact that if they are presented with an opportunity, they do not hesitate to exploit it. I gave examples on Second Reading and in Committee of fraudulent activity seen by HMRC, and I am sorry to say that, as I have mentioned, further examples are easily provided. It is not just HMRC and the Treasury that recognise that fraud in the charity sector is a problem; there is wide acknowledgment in the sector that fraud is a costly issue, particularly because of the reputational damage it causes. Some Members may be aware that last month saw Charity Fraud Awareness Week and the launch of a new “Charities against fraud” website, which is a joint initiative between the Charity Commission and the Fraud Advisory Panel to help trustees and volunteers to recognise the risks and take action to prevent fraud in charities.
There is also recognition from charity umbrella bodies that charity fraud can be incredibly damaging. The Charity Finance Group noted in its guide “Countering Fraud”, which was published during Fraud Awareness Week:
“Fraud is a problem that can affect any charity from the very large to the very small. Falling victim to fraud can undermine  a charity’s reputation, damage donor confidence and reduce a charity’s ability to help its beneficiaries. On occasion fraud has even led to the forced closure of a charity.”
The Government will not tolerate the abuse of charitable status, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by the Charity Finance Group. The Government will continue to take action to tackle and disrupt the dishonest minority who attempt such fraud.
I am simply not convinced that it would be helpful to publish an annual report detailing the compliance activity that HMRC has undertaken. Indeed, I fear that doing so could have the unintended consequence of assisting the very people whom HMRC is attempting to weed out. HMRC’s operational performance in this and every other respect is, quite rightly, the subject of independent scrutiny by the National Audit Office and Parliament, through the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. For that reason, I believe that new clause 1 is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles might consider withdrawing it.

Kirsty Blackman: None of us has suggested, at any stage of the proceedings on the Bill, removing all the anti-fraud measures. In fact, we were quite clear and measured in everything that we moved; it was about an assessment. New clause 1 is about responding to our concerns about the actual level of fraud and providing us with the relevant information to enable us to have a much more knowledgeable debate next time the matter comes up—specifically around the level, the percentage and the money that is involved—rather than about removing the measure entirely.

Jane Ellison: I understand that point, but my real concern is that the matching rule is the only remaining condition on this particular scheme. Obviously, there are other aspects to wider gift aid, but on the scheme that is the subject of this Bill, we are down to a simple last remaining condition that we believe helps to avoid the scheme being exploited fraudulently. I just do not accept the premise that it is sensible to remove it, to see what happens and then to come back to Parliament and say, “We removed it and, as we thought, it was exploited, so now we have to close that loophole again, but in the meantime we have lost public money and, more importantly, charities have lost reputation.”

Susan Elan Jones: I accept that the Minister may want to keep the matching rule to some extent, but what is so sacred about 1:10?

Jane Ellison: I will say a little about that. As other hon. Members have said, there was movement on this during the passage of the original legislation. The figure is reasonable and strikes a sensible balance. A ratio of 1:10 is an easy one for those administering this to remember. If hon. Members accept that the matching rule is sensible in principle, I am prepared to say that it is something we would anyway keep under review in the normal course of events. The civil society Minister and I were saying to each other on the Front Bench a moment ago that, given hon. Members’ interest in this, we will keep an eye on it in particular and draw it out in the ongoing dialogue that we naturally have with charities. However, I cannot accept that removing it entirely is a good idea. These things are kept under constant review, and both the Treasury and the civil society parts of Government have a very good relationship with the charities sector, so we will have plenty of opportunities to continue to have such a dialogue with charities and to understand where this comes in. In a few moments, I will say a little more to demonstrate that it is not the barrier that some hon. Members have suggested it is.
Let me turn to new clauses 2 and 4. New clause 2 is a request for a review of the matching rule in consultation with the charity sector. As I have said, the Government have already undertaken a full review of all aspects of the gift aid small donations scheme, including the matching rule, and the Bill is a result of that review. However, I will always be happy to keep an eye on this issue. The Government’s review was comprehensive and open, and it was carried out in full consultation with the charities sector and, indeed, with anyone with an interest in the scheme or in charity tax reliefs more generally. Some hon. Members will recall that, as I have said, back in 2012, the Government committed to reviewing the operation of the scheme after three years, so the Government have made good on that promise.
We recognise how important the scheme and the promised review were to charities. We listened to  the sector, and that is why we announced in the autumn statement last year that we would bring forward the review of the scheme to December 2015. To inform  the review, HMRC published a call for evidence in December, seeking charities’ views about the operation of the scheme, including its eligibility rules and processes. The call for evidence asked five questions about the scheme’s eligibility criteria, including two questions specifically about the gift aid matching requirement. The call for evidence closed on 2 March. HMRC received 197 responses from charities, representative bodies and other interested parties. The Government reviewed all the submissions and published a response on 20 April.
In the responses document, which is available on the Government’s website, we explain that the vast majority of—indeed, almost all—the respondents to the call for evidence did not identify the matching rule as a major barrier to accessing the scheme. The Government recognise that many of the responses reflected the experience of charities already successfully using the scheme and may not therefore be representative of the sector as a whole. We take that point, so HMRC has supplemented the data provided by charities with an analysis of its own data. As I explained in Committee, the data showed that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more, entitling them to the maximum small donations allowance at that time of £5,000. HMRC’s analysis also showed that 98% of charities claiming gift aid in 2014-15 claimed sufficient amounts to receive a small donations allowance of at least £1,000.
The Government also considered data produced by the charity sector. A survey carried out by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the Small Charities Coalition and the Association of Independent Museums found that just 5% of respondents claimed no gift aid at all, and only 10% did not feel that their charity claimed enough gift aid to make the small donations scheme worthwhile.
Following the call for evidence, HMRC published a further consultation on reform options on 20 April, which was yet another opportunity for stakeholders to put forward reform ideas for consideration. That consultation closed on 1 July this year. It received 46 responses. Again, interestingly, the matching rule was not raised as an issue by the vast majority of respondents.
Quite simply, none of the available data, whether produced by the Government or the sector itself, support the assertion that the gift aid matching rule is a significant barrier to accessing the small donations scheme. The Government have already collected data on the matching rule, carried out a full objective review of the whole scheme and consulted the charity sector. That is why we believe that repeating the consultation process again, so soon after the last consultation, would not produce a different outcome, and why, therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles not to press new clause 2 to a Division.
As I have said, given the clear interest in the House, we will continue to take a keen interest in this matter,  and will listen to the views of the charity sector. The civil society Minister and I are already talking about how we can do more to publicise some aspects of the scheme, and in particular how to get those that do not take advantage of the small donations scheme at the moment to do so. There is a charities day on 16 November, about which we will say a little more later; that will be an opportunity to say and do more to promote the scheme to that small minority not already using it.
I appreciate that in tabling new clause 4 the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) are seeking to understand the differential impact that abolishing the matching rule would have on charities of different sizes. I have already set out why we do not support the removal of the gift aid matching rule, but I have to tell Opposition Members that it is simply not possible to provide them with the level of analysis that they are seeking. Although HMRC holds data on charitable tax reliefs, it quite rightly collects and retains only those data that are necessary to support its function of administering gift aid and other reliefs. Size and turnover are not relevant for gift aid purposes; HMRC therefore does not routinely collect data on the size or types of charities claiming gift aid or small donations top-ups.
As I explained in Committee, HMRC is transparent with the data it holds, and publishes a national statistics package every year that provides a wealth of information about the take-up and use of charitable tax reliefs, including the gift aid small donations scheme. Hon. Members may also be interested to know that HMRC makes many of its datasets, including those relating to charitable reliefs, available—suitably anonymised, of course—to academics and other individuals who approach it with a suitable research proposal. I can tell the House that a number of organisations have recently made use of HMRC’s charities data for research purposes. That is a good example of open government and open data being put to good use.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that where HMRC possesses data, those data are transparent and, where appropriate, open to outside scrutiny. New clause 4 is not appropriate, because it would require, in legislation, the Government to do something that we simply cannot do. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will consider not pressing the new clause to a Division.
Let me turn finally to new clause 3. As I have explained in previous debates, the connected charities rules are intended to protect the gift aid small donations scheme from abuse. They work in conjunction with the community buildings rules to deliver fair and broadly equal outcomes for charities structured in different ways. Without the connected charities rules, larger charities would be faced with a perverse incentive to splinter into artificial groups of smaller charities to increase their entitlement to small donations allowances. New clause 3 would grant the Treasury the power to exempt specific named charities from the connected charities rules. It would also require the Treasury to publish draft regulations, following consultation with the Scouts, the Guides and others.
The new clause is unnecessary. As we have heard, the Government have just concluded a full and open review of all aspects of the gift aid small donations scheme. That review included the gift aid matching rule and the connected charities rules. In that very open consultation,  many representations included the Scouts and other uniformed groups. The Government listened to the representations from the uniformed groups. They told us that they welcomed the gift aid small donations scheme, but were unable to benefit fully from the  current community buildings rules because most of their fundraising, as Members will know, takes place outside in their local community. The Bill will therefore relax the community buildings rules to allow donations collected outside the building to be counted for community buildings purposes. As discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, this will help bob-a-job work and so on that is done outside the scout hut or other building.
The intention is to allow groups such as the Scouts to benefit more fully from the scheme without the need to specifically exclude them from the connected charities provision. We debated a similar amendment in Committee and had a thorough and thoughtful debate on the implications of the Bill for the youth groups in question. The shadow Chief Secretary raised a number of good points and I undertook to reflect on them and look at them more closely. Having done so, I confirm to the House that a scout hut is an eligible community building and there is no requirement for the building to be rented out or for access to be granted to other community groups. That means that the Scouts and other similar uniformed groups will benefit from the changes contained in the Bill. Whether it is bag-packing at the local supermarket or bucket collections at the local fete, donations in the local community will count for the small donations scheme. The Bill’s provisions already deliver the outcome Opposition Members seek. I therefore suggest that new clause 3 is unnecessary and I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: With the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3

Regulations on local branches and groups

‘(1) The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 5(1) (general provisions on meaning of “connected”), insert—
“(1A) This section is subject to the provisions of regulations made under section 5A (regulations on local branches and groups).”
(3) After section 5, insert the following—
“5A Regulations on local branches and groups
(1) The Treasury shall by regulations prescribe organisations in which local or regional branches or groups may not be considered to be connected for the purposes of sections 4 and 5.
(2) The Treasury shall publish the first set of draft regulations made under subsection (1) no later than 31 October 2017.
(3) Before publishing draft regulations under this section, the Treasury shall consult—
(a) the Scout Association;
(b) the Guide Association;
(c) the Combined Cadet Force Association; and
(d) such other organisations as appear to the Treasury to be relevant.”—(Rebecca Long Bailey.)
This new clause requires the Treasury to identify organisations with local or regional branch or group structures in order that those local and regional branches or groups can be separately eligible under the scheme, and to consult certain organisations about the regulations in draft.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 254, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 4

Abolition of Gift Aid donations threshold

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must carry out an assessment of the impact on charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs of amending the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme so as to remove the 10% Gift Aid donations threshold that must be met in order to access the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme, including an assessment of the differential impact on different sizes of charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs concerned.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’ —(Kirsty Blackman.)
Charities and CASCs must give gift aid exemption claims on donations received in order to make a claim under the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme. The total gift aid donations must be at least 10% of the amount of the small donations on which top-up payments are claimed. This new clause would require the Chancellor to assess the impact of abolishing this requirement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 256, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 2

Meaning of "Small Donation"

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I beg to move amendment 1,page2, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—
“(a) in the heading after “small”, delete “cash payment” and insert “donation”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (1) omit the words “in cash”;
(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(1A) The gift must be made—
(b) by cheque;
(c) by electronic communication; or
(d) by a contactless payment.”
(d) in sub-paragraph (3) after the definition of “cash” insert—
“cheque” means a written order instructing a bank to pay upon its presentation to the person designated in it, or the to the person possessing it, a certain sum of money from the account of the person who draws it; “electronic communication” means a payment made via the internet or text message.”
This amendment would extend the range of methods by which payments can be made under the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme.

Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2,page2,line6, at end insert—
“or
(c) by a comparable method prescribed by the Treasury by regulations.”
This amendment would give the Treasury a power to prescribe by regulations other methods of payment comparable to contactless payment in the future.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Opposition amendments 1 and 2 relate to the types of payment eligible for the gift aid small donations scheme. Amendment 1 would extend the range of payment methods to include cheques and electronic communications—that is, texts. The Bill itself extends the methods to include contactless payments. Amendment 2 would give the Treasury powers to prescribe by regulations other methods of payment comparable to contactless payments in the future. I will keep my remarks on these two amendments relatively brief as we had an extensive debate of this issue in Committee, although I did not push it to a vote.
Currently, cash donations under £20 are considered eligible for the scheme. The Bill brings contactless payments into the scheme, and we support that measure. However, the charity sector has said that it would be more beneficial for other types of payment, particularly cheques, to be eligible as well. When this was discussed in Committee, the Minister said that amending the Bill in such a way was
“contrary to the stated policy intention of the scheme.”––[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 10.]
I want to take this opportunity to disagree.
The intention of the scheme is to allow charities to get a gift aid-style top-up on donations made in situations where it is infeasible, but not impossible, to get a gift aid declaration. I would argue that donations made by text are a prime example of such a situation. The Minister has said that receiving gift aid declarations on donations via SMS is a straightforward process: the donor simply needs to reply to a follow-up text message giving their name and address and confirming that they are a taxpayer. It might be straightforward, but people tend to be wary of disclosing personal information. I certainly would not feel comfortable sending my address and other details to an unknown number.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) helpfully alerted us to paragraph 1.8 of the Treasury consultation “Gift Aid and Digital Giving”. I am sure that the Minister has had time to check it out, but I can remind her that the document states:
“Individual donations online or by text are often small. In these cases for the donor it may not seem worthwhile to go to the trouble of filling out a Gift Aid declaration for a small additional amount to go to the recipient charity.”
It is therefore clear that getting a gift aid declaration via text is not as straightforward as the Minister would have us believe.
Similar situations can arise with cheques, as detailed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). Elderly people in particular often send cheques in the post, making it impossible for charities to track them down and get a gift aid declaration—it is probably not worth it if it is a small amount. Amendment 1 would simply allow such donations to be eligible for the scheme. I hope the Minister will offer some movement on this area as I simply cannot see the logic in saying that extending payments in that way would somehow encourage charities to move away from traditional gift aid claims.
Amendment 2 would allow the Treasury to make regulations to tweak the legislation to allow types of payments similar to contactless payment to come under the scope of the scheme. It was argued in Committee that technology is moving forward at an incredibly fast pace and that next year people might be using a new type of card or gadget to donate to charity. The Opposition are convinced by that line of reasoning and the amendment would simply give the Government the power to make changes to allow Oyster cards, for example, to come within the scope of the legislation without having to create a brand-new Bill. It is not often the Opposition’s desire to give the Government more powers, but it would be worthwhile in this scenario.
In conclusion, the Opposition strongly support the move to include contactless payment, but we do not see the logic in singling it out when the sector is saying that other payment methods would provide a greater boost to the scheme. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will be pushing amendment 1 to a vote should she not see fit to accept it.

Jane Ellison: As we have just heard, amendment 1 would extend the gift aid small donations scheme to include donations made via cheque, online or SMS. Amendment 2 would give the Treasury the power to amend the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 through secondary legislation to include other unspecified methods of payment in future. As the shadow Minister said, we debated this area in some detail both on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am afraid that I will be making many of the same points.
When I opened the Second Reading debate, I told the House that it is a Government priority to maximise the gift aid claimed by charities on eligible donations. It is worth reflecting on that because during the Bill’s passage through the House we have quite rightly focused on the gift aid small donations scheme, but the scheme—important though it is—forms just one part of the package of generous tax reliefs the Government use to support our charity sector. Gift aid was worth over £1.3 billion to the charity sector last year—a significant amount—but we want to see gift aid claimed on even more eligible donations, and we want charities to claim gift aid because it is a much more beneficial scheme and has many advantages for charities over the longer term. The shadow Minister said that she was not seeking to undermine gift aid, but it is worth reminding ourselves that it is the more beneficial scheme, so we want to encourage people to take it up.
One reason is that gift aid is not capped—relief can be claimed on individual donations worth hundreds or thousands of pounds. There is no annual limit—charities can claim on as many eligible donations as they are able to solicit. The act of obtaining a gift aid declaration provides charities with the opportunity to build a relationship with their donors, leading to a more sustainable and resilient funding stream.

Rob Wilson: Exactly.

Jane Ellison: As the Minister for civil society indicates from a sedentary position, that is absolutely key to the long-term health of many charities.
We fully accept that there are situations in which, with the best will in the world, charity fundraisers cannot stop donors to ask them to complete a gift aid declaration. The gift aid small donations scheme is therefore intended to be used for those small, low-value, spur of the moment donations when contact between donor and charity is fleeting and it is not practical or feasible to solicit a gift aid declaration. Those will primarily be the small cash donations that the small donations scheme was originally designed to cover, but we also accept, following discussions with the sector, that this should also apply to contactless donations. However, the Government are not persuaded that this is the case with other methods of donations such as those made by text, online or by cheque, and I set out reasons for that on Second Reading and in Committee.
I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced by right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, and I completely understand the points they are making. However, if the argument is that the process for claiming gift aid on electronic donations, such as those by SMS, is too onerous, that is a separate issue and the solution is not to try to shoehorn methods of donation into the gift aid small donations scheme which it was never intended to cover.
The Government completely agree that the process for claiming gift aid on SMS and online donations made through digital intermediaries should be simpler. We have discussed this issue in detail with the sector and have published several consultation documents. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made reference to one such document in Committee, and it has been referred to again today. I am pleased to tell him, the shadow Minister and other hon. Members that we have made progress on this issue. Primary legislation was included in the Finance Act 2015 and the Finance Act 2016, and draft regulations were published for technical consultation earlier this year. The Government intend to lay those regulations shortly, and they will simplify the process of gift aiding donations through digital intermediaries. Instead of completing a gift aid declaration for every donation made, donors will be able to sign a one-off authorisation allowing the intermediary to create gift aid declarations and claim gift aid on the donor’s behalf for all subsequent donations made in that tax year.

James Duddridge: I was about to rise to congratulate the Minister, as this seems like a really good initiative, but why apply this for only just that tax year? Given that someone is able to donate to an organisation and do it within a tax year, why not roll this over into future tax years to extend this provision? Perhaps I am being uncharitable to her, as this is a good provision, but it could be even better.

Jane Ellison: I strongly suspect that there are technical reasons why that would be difficult, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend’s suggestion away, look at it and respond properly to him. In the spirit of simplification, he seeks to make it ever easier to make these donations. As a result of the way Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs operates—within tax years—I could foresee difficulties with this approach, but I will look at it and write to him with a bit more detail.
There are more things we can do to make things easier for charities, and the Government are constantly looking at ways of achieving that—we have just heard another suggestion from my hon. Friend. I am pleased to tell the House that we have a very good track record of simplifying gift aid processes for charities. For example, in 2013 we introduced Charities Online to help charities to claim gift aid even faster, and 95% of charities now use this service. Instead of having to fill in paper forms and post them back to HMRC, charities can claim their repayments online and have them paid directly into their bank account. Under the old paper system it could take up to three working weeks for charities to receive their repayments, whereas most claims are now paid within five working days. I am sure hon. Members would agree that that is a welcome boost for charities.  Just last year, HMRC introduced a new, shorter model gift aid declaration to make it easier for donors to understand their obligations under the scheme, and it worked in close collaboration with the Charity Retail Association to simplify and clarify the Government’s guidance on the retail gift aid scheme. Earlier this summer, the Treasury published a consultation exploring ways of simplifying the gift aid donor benefits rules, and we looked carefully at the responses received before publishing a response.
Of course, we will keep looking for ways to simplify and improve gift aid, but these are questions about the wider gift aid scheme, not the gift aid small donations scheme. My hon. Friend might be pleased to note that one reason I foresaw difficulties with his proposal is that people’s tax status can change from year to year—for example, when they move from work into retirement—and this would make things difficult. I hope that that response is helpful, but I will follow up with him in more detail.
Amendment 2 would grant the Treasury the power to amend the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 in the future in the event that new donation technology develops. Members who were present at the original Bill discussion reminded us in Committee that they had made points about future-proofing the scheme in terms of technology at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) are nodding. It is an interesting point, which we have debated.
The Government have consulted fully on the changes to the scheme, and as part of the consultation that we have just undertaken, the extensive nature of which I outlined earlier, HMRC officials went out and met with charities and other groups to discuss contactless donations and other technological developments. They considered methods of donation that are not currently in use but might be in the pipeline. I understand that there was no suggestion from the stakeholders that there are other imminent technological developments in the pipeline that would be suitable for the small donations scheme. In any event, we have deliberately drafted the definition of “contactless payment” quite widely.
As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in Committee, the definition in the Bill would cover donations from, for example, Oyster cards, as the shadow Minister mentioned, or other smart cards. It would also cover new payment services similar to Apple Pay and Android Pay. We believe that the definition in the Bill is sufficient to cover most of the technological developments that we are likely to see in the reasonably foreseeable future.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I expressed some degree of sympathy with amendment 2, given that I raised some of these points. I am reassured about the extension of contactless payments, particularly to Oyster cards, as was mentioned from the Opposition Front Bench. However, I do not support the amendment because of its wording. It refers to “comparable method”. The shadow Minister used the word “similar”, and my hon. Friend the Minister used the term “unspecified”. That is all unclear. There will be further technological changes and we will probably look back and say, “Wasn’t there a formulation that we could have used to include this new technology?” The wording of the amendment is not satisfactory and unfortunately I cannot offer a suggestion to improve it.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Learning, perhaps, from the time when the predecessor Bill was before the House, we have tried to look ahead, consult widely, and future-proof this Bill against forms of payment that are not yet widely used. It is sensible to try to provide a definition of those, rather than leaving the Bill overly vague. We have done a sound job of future-proofing the Bill as much as is reasonably possible.
I fully accept that at some future stage, perhaps some years from now, a new donation method could be developed which would not be covered by the current definition. We cannot know whether that future method might have implications for other parts of the Bill. That is why I am nervous about writing a woolly definition into the Bill. If and when there is a new donation method not foreseen or covered by the Bill, it is important that the Government come before the House with primary legislation, explain their decision and allow Parliament to scrutinise the proposed changes properly. As this Bill has proceeded relatively uncontroversially through the House, it would be hard to argue that the scrutiny of it and the attention that it has allowed us to focus on the scheme and on gift aid more widely have not been a good thing. The Bill demonstrates that we keep matters under review and that, when there is a case for change, we come back before Parliament and engage in a full and proper debate.
Gift aid is hugely beneficial for charities and we want as many charities as possible to benefit from gift aid on the eligible donations that they receive. I have given an undertaking that the Treasury will work with the Minister for civil society to publicise the charities day on 16 December and to look more widely at what we can do to make sure that take-up continues to grow. The small donations scheme is a separate scheme intended to bridge the gap caused by small, fleeting donations. It is not a replacement for or an alternative to gift aid, and if charities can obtain a gift aid declaration, they should do so because it is in their best interests, for reasons that I have touched on.
This Bill will improve the gift aid small donations scheme. Separately the Government are taking action to improve the wider scheme, and I hope that that action will address a number of the concerns raised in the debate by hon. Members. The small donations scheme is not the right vehicle to bring about the changes that have been suggested and that the shadow Minister is seeking. I hope that, having heard these reassurances, she will withdraw her amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 248, Noes 279.

Question accordingly negatived.
Third Reading

Jane Ellison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to move the Bill’s Third Reading. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to scrutinise and engage with the Bill so constructively during its passage through this House. It is a short and technical Bill, but it is nevertheless important and it delivers real benefits to our vibrant charity sector and for working families.
I am very pleased that during its passage through this House, the Bill has received broad cross-party support and provided an opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to highlight and champion the wonderful work that local charities do right across the country. On Second Reading, we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about the volunteers in her constituency shovelling snow to keep the pavements clear in winter. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) spoke of the work done by a charity in his constituency to help people living with HIV/AIDS. We heard about the work of animal welfare charities, including   Waggy Tails Rescue in Mid Dorset and North Poole, and of course I took the opportunity to mention Battersea Dogs and Cats home in my constituency.
It is not just charities that will benefit from the reforms to the gift aid small donations scheme. As several hon. Members pointed out, community amateur sports clubs will also be able to access top-up payments sooner, and we heard examples of local sports clubs in Taunton Deane, Chippenham and Congleton that could benefit. The small donations scheme is a good thing for charities. It allows them to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment of 25p in the pound when it is not practical or feasible to obtain a gift aid declaration from a donor.
The Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill will make it even easier for charities to access those top-up payments by removing entirely two of the existing eligibility criteria. The Bill will also simplify and clarify the rules, ensuring that the scheme remains fair and delivers broad parity of treatment for charities structured in different ways. We are reforming the community buildings rules to make the scheme much more generous for local charities that operate out of community buildings. I sought to reassure the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) about organisations such as Scouts and Guides by confirming the eligibility in their case. In Committee and again on Report the Opposition Front-Bench team tabled probing amendments on that point and others, and we have had a couple of thorough debates. I reiterate what I said earlier to the House: a scout hut is an eligible community building, so scouts and other uniformed groups will benefit from the changes in the Bill. I hope that all Members here will join me in supporting this enabling reform. We have heard from some Members about their yesteryears in the scouts, and anything that helps scouts to continue with “bob a job” and all their other community fundraising schemes can only be a good thing.
We are also taking action through this Bill to future-proof the gift aid small donations scheme by extending eligibility to contactless donations, so that charities can continue to benefit from the scheme for many years to come. The message that the Bill sends is clear: the Government want a strong, vibrant and resilient charity sector and we will do all we can to support it through the tax system.
In addition to celebrating the work of our charities and sports clubs, the Bill’s passage through the House provoked an important wider debate about the threats that the sector faces, and particularly the importance of a robust regulatory regime to protect the reputation of charities from the dishonest minority who seek to abuse charitable status. It is not necessarily a pleasant issue to have to contemplate, but we have had an important debate. It is good that we are continually pushed to think about how we can protect our charities further. The sector is one of our great assets. It is very important, and we need to do all we can to protect it. I have argued consistently that the Bill strikes the right balance between simplifying the gift aid small donations scheme, making it easier for charities to claim top-up payments and protecting the Exchequer from abuse and charities from reputational damage.
During the Bill’s passage through this House, hon. and right hon. Members have expressed some concern about take-up of the gift aid small donations scheme.  As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), the civil society Minister, told the House on Second Reading, last year 21,300 charities benefited from the small donations scheme, claiming a total of £26 million of Government support. That is a lot of charities, but we accept that it is fewer than forecast. That is why we are simplifying the scheme by removing two of the main eligibility criteria and relaxing the community buildings rules.
I can also tell the House today that once the new rules take effect, HMRC will undertake a broad communications exercise to promote greater awareness of the gift aid small donations scheme. I have also asked what targeted activity can be undertaken. I encourage charity sector bodies and representative groups to work with the Treasury and HMRC to make the reformed scheme a success. I thank them and the officials concerned for the constructive approach that they take and the work that is done to bring this legislation to the House.
Let me say a quick word about the tax-free childcare portion of the Bill, which makes a small number of minor and technical, but important, amendments to the tax-free childcare scheme. That fact has not limited the interest shown in the scheme during the debates, and tax-free childcare continues to enjoy cross-party support. A number of speakers have looked forward to being able to use the scheme for their own children, and such a prospect draws ever closer as the scheme is set to commence next year.
For many, this will be the first time they will be able to access Government support with childcare costs as tax-free childcare will be available to all working parents, regardless of whether they are employed or self-employed. HMRC is about to begin inviting parents to test the new service in trials. As in bringing forward these changes, HMRC will again listen to parents to ensure that it provides the best possible service. The responses made in the Bill, with the minor and technical changes, will help HMRC to ensure that it is quick and easy for working parents to access the support they need with their childcare costs.
The Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill is a short and, it is fair to say, uncontroversial, yet important Bill. Its passage through the House has seen thoughtful and constructive challenge that has allowed us to debate a number of important principles, as well as to praise some of the vital charities that are forces for good in our communities and our wider society. The Bill is therefore a positive Bill. We are making life easier for small charities and for working parents, and I commend it to the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will keep my comments very brief in this stage in the proceedings. The Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill as a whole makes positive changes to the gift aid small donations scheme and very minor changes to the tax-free childcare scheme.
The Opposition have welcomed the Government’s aim throughout the passage of the Bill to make sure that the gift aid small donations scheme is more accessible and to encourage charities to take part. The scheme has not been as successful as the Government had hoped, and the Bill certainly makes changes to improve that situation. In particular, the abolition of the two-year  eligibility rule and the two-in-four years claims rule will open up the scheme to new charities, while bringing contactless payments into the definition of a small payment will bring the scheme into line with how donations can be made in the modern day.
However, as the Minister is aware, the Opposition think the Bill could have gone further, as do representatives of the charity sector. Indeed, the Charity Finance Group has said that the Government were “locking in future failure” by not introducing wider reforms. We have tried to improve the Bill after receiving feedback from the sector. Along with SNP Members, we have tried to address the key issue coming out of the feedback,  which is the matching requirement. Our amendments  in Committee and on Report would have forced the Government to conduct a specific review of the rule and of how the scheme fits within the framework of anti-fraud measures in the scheme. Unfortunately, the Government have not made any movement on this issue, which is a barrier to entry to the scheme, according to charity representatives. However, I note the comments that the Minister made earlier, and I look forward to receiving any further updates from her on this matter in due course.
We have also tried to widen the payment methods eligible for the scheme beyond cash and contactless payments. Our amendments would have included cheques and donations via text and online. Again, unfortunately, the Government have not seen fit to work with us on this part of the Bill, simply using flawed logic, as it were, to prevent the changes that the charity sector wants from happening. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the comments made during the passage of the Bill, and consider whether amendments can be made in due course to make the use of cheques and, in particular, of text messages more accessible to the gift aid sector.
Finally, we have tried to address what appeared to be a flaw in the original legislation, preventing the scouts, guides and cadet groups from gaining the full benefits of the scheme. For the benefit of hon. Members who are not aware of the issue, the connected charities rule means that the scouts, guides and cadet groups are each treated as one charity, despite the fact that local groups are individual and self-financing, and that means only one top-up payment can be received. As I highlighted when we discussed this amendment in the Public Bill Committee, the Charity Finance Group has suggested that such treatment means they receive only 17p per individual group a year.
The Minister had a few issues with our amendment, as drafted, and we listened to her concerns and modified it to reflect them. I particularly appreciate the comments she has made in relation to scout groups and their bases. However, she will recognise that the comments made in Committee related to the need for the scope of our amendment to go further to include groups beyond the scouts and girl guides. I hope she will consider that very carefully and see whether she can put in place any future amendments or provisions to deal with any other groups in a similar position that are not, as it were, mopped up by the Bill.
To conclude, perhaps once the Government have reviewed the scheme’s effectiveness in the light of the changes the Bill makes we may have an opportunity to come back to some of those changes, as I have said. Overall, however, the Opposition support the Bill and  its aims. I hope it will succeed in making the small donations scheme more accessible and in supporting smaller and new charities. I look forward to an update on the impact of the revised legislation in due course.

Kirsty Blackman: It is nice to speak on Third Reading of a Bill when there has largely been agreement on many of the measures it contains.
The Government’s measures on the gift aid small donations scheme are sensible and logical steps forward, and it is good that more charities will be able to benefit from the scheme as a result. We were very clear that we would have liked the Government to go further, but we appreciate the steps they have taken, and the wide-ranging consultation they have undertaken.
We raised the matching requirement a number of times. My understanding is that the Government have the power to make changes to that requirement without the need for primary legislation anyway. It is useful to know that the Government can consider that if they receive future representations on the matter. Our concerns related in particular to volunteer-led charities—the very smallest charities, which perhaps do not have the administrative capacity to access some of these schemes. But I appreciate that the Government have committed to undertake a wider publicity effort on the gift aid small donations scheme and on how charities can access tax reliefs. I hope that charities across the UK will benefit from those changes.
The changes to the way that people will access childcare payments are sensible and seem more accessible than the current system. Having used the current system and struggled with some of its administrative impacts, I think the new scheme will iron out some of those flaws, and am pleased that even before the new scheme comes in the Government are re-evaluating it and looking to make it as accessible and as easy for parents to navigate as possible. I understand that a pilot will take place and that, by the end of next year, pretty much everyone should have moved over to the new scheme. I hope the Government will commit to re-evaluating the scheme as it goes forward, to ensure that it is as accessible as possible.
On that re-evaluation, in Scotland we are making changes to the early learning and childcare system, and are looking at a mass expansion so that as many families as possible can access free, good quality childcare that is easily accessible in local communities. In my local community, at Manor Park Primary School, 20 two-year-olds will take part in a trial that is taking place in my area and in a number of other places across Scotland. I am sure that the UK Government will be keen to learn from Scotland’s experience of the expansion of free childcare and will be looking at it for the future.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. As I have said, we are broadly supportive of the Bill but would have liked it to go further in some areas. However, we will not oppose its Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Public Accounts Commission

Ordered,
That Deirdre Brock be discharged as a member of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983, and that Philip Boswell be appointed.—(Heather Wheeler.)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.—(Graham Stuart.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Excluded Sites) Amendment Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.—(Graham Stuart.)
Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Establishing a European Union Agency for Asylum, Allocating Responsibility for Asylum Claims within the EU (Reform of the Dublin Rules) and Fingerprinting of Asylum Applicants and Irregular Migrants (The EURODAC System) (Opt-in Decisions)

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8742/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No. 439/2010, endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in under Protocol 21 on  the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties (Protocol 21), notes that the Government is able to opt in post-adoption and supports the Government’s intention to continue supporting other Member States on asylum matters; further takes note of European Union Document No. 8715/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), also known as the Dublin Regulation and endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in under Protocol 21; and further takes note of European Union Document No. 8765/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Dublin Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and endorses the Government’s decision to opt in under Protocol 21.—(Graham Stuart.)
Question agreed to.

Leaving the EU: NHS Funding

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Graham Stuart.)

Chuka Umunna: On 23 June, our country voted to leave the European Union. The result was not a landslide: 48% voted to remain; 52% voted to leave. London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain; the majority of England and Wales voted to leave. The young overwhelmingly voted to stay; older voters opted to go. Socioeconomic classes and ethnic groups also voted in different ways.
I was immensely proud to play a leading role in the “Labour In for Britain” and “Britain Stronger in Europe” campaigns during the EU referendum. To my core, I still believe that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we do alone, not only as individuals but as a nation state, as we seek to amplify Britain’s role in the world and achieve as much for our community of nations around the world as possible. However, I accept the result. Before the vote, remain campaigners accepted the rules under which the referendum was fought. I do not think that, having had a referendum conducted under those rules, which we debated in the House, we can now reject them because we do not like the outcome. Either you are a democrat or you are not, Mr Speaker, and I am a democrat.
Various promises were made by each side in that referendum campaign. Now it is over, it is important that we hold to account the winning side for the policies and claims that were made and upon which people voted. I say “hold to account” deliberately. We on the remain side would not want all of Vote Leave’s promises to be delivered, but it is right and proper, for the sake of our shared values of democracy, accountability and transparency—the foundations upon which this House is built—that Vote Leave campaigners who are Members of the House should be tested on whether they deliver what they pledged to the people. If they do not, they should explain why not to their constituents and the nation in this House. Thousands of people agree—they have joined the Vote Leave Watch campaign because they care about this, too. I chair that campaign, and I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
One promise that the overwhelming majority of people—both the 16 million who voted remain and the 17 million who voted leave—want to see kept is the Vote Leave campaign’s pledge to put £350 million extra per week into the NHS. That was the key pledge of the Vote Leave campaign. Prominent members of the current Cabinet—the Foreign, Environment, International Development, International Trade, and Transport Secretaries—went around the country in a big red bus that said, “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead”. They gave speeches in front of a sign saying, “Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week”. None of them disowned that pledge during the campaign—not a single one. The clear message they sought to give to the people was that if we leave the EU, £350 million a week extra will be put into our national health service. No qualification was given to that pledge.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. This is such an important point for our economy, as we know in my part of London, where the Barts trust has the largest predicted overspend in NHS history. Does he agree that it is vital that those who campaigned on the pledge that this money would be provided are held to account, because communities such as mine are suffering without investment in the NHS?

Chuka Umunna: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. When I had the pleasure of visiting her constituency the other week, I saw for myself the situation that she describes.

Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the claim of £350 million a week for the NHS was at the centre of Vote Leave’s campaign. Leave campaigners were given a number of opportunities to review, qualify or disown the claim, including following strident criticism from all members—remainers and leavers—of the Treasury Committee. The fact they chose not to distance themselves from the claim surely demonstrates that this is a promise that ought to be delivered. If it is not delivered, they will have some explaining to do.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As he said, it was significant that the Treasury Committee came to its conclusion, since it is a cross-party Committee whose members include leavers and remainers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, we know that the NHS needs extra cash. The Minister also knows this. As members of the Health Committee pointed out last month, the deficit in NHS trusts and foundation trusts in 2015-16 was more than £3.5 billion.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument for extra NHS funding, but does he share my concern that our NHS could actually be worse off as a result of the decision to leave the EU, given that the reduction in our exchange rate will make it more expensive to purchase products from abroad? Does he also share my concern that, when I asked the Secretary of State for Health how much and what proportion of the total NHS budget was spent on imports, the Department was unaware and therefore unable to give me that information?

Chuka Umunna: It is outrageous that Ministers were unable to give my hon. Friend those figures. Ministers themselves exacerbated the knock-on impact on the economy of the depreciation of the pound. It depreciated in value by 6% before October, and then by a further 15% because of uncertainty around our trading arrangements that was triggered by comments made by the International Trade Secretary that differed from those of the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee and in other forums. The knock-on effect is not, however, just on household budgets. As the cost of things increases, of course the NHS will take a big hit. Public services in general will be affected if growth reduces and Exchequer receipts fall.
Ministers’ claimed increases in NHS funding, which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), might mention, are actually being funded by reductions in other areas  of health spending that fall outside NHS England’s budget. Reductions in spending on social care are having a serious impact on the NHS, and that is translating into increased accident and emergency attendances, emergency admissions and delays to people leaving hospital. I have talked about what Select Committees, Ministers and Members of Parliament are saying, but we have also heard from third parties. The King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation are clear that current Government spending plans through to 2019-20 will not be enough to maintain standards of care, to meet rising demand from patients and to deliver the transformation in services outlined in the NHS five year forward view.
I and more than 40 Members from different parties, including all my hon. Friends in the Chamber for the debate, have written to the Chancellor asking that when he presents his first autumn statement on 23 November, he sets out how he will put the Government on a path to increasing national NHS spending by that promised £350 million extra a week once we have left the EU. To be clear, that additional funding must be over and above the amount currently planned to be spent on the NHS. The British Medical Association has made the same demand.

Anna Soubry: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have to honour a promise made by others to the tune of £350 million a week extra for the NHS? My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and other notable leavers have now conceded that the actual figure was £120 million. Would it not be unfair to say that the Government have to deliver that pledge, given that they never made any such promise to the British people?

Chuka Umunna: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention; I shall come on to those precise points shortly. I note, however, the public statements she herself made when she was a member of the Government. She criticised the way in which her fellow Ministers were going around making these big promises, perhaps on her behalf.

Anna Soubry: We must be very clear about this. During the referendum, we campaigned individually, not as Ministers on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman is right that some Ministers campaigned for leave and made this promise—and indeed many other promises that I do not think they will be able to deliver—but there is a distinction to be made between the promises of the Government and those of people who now happen to be in government. It is really the leave campaign that must be held to account, not the Government.

Chuka Umunna: The right hon. Lady pre-empts what I am about to say; I shall come on to that precise point.
To be clear, I want the Minister, on behalf of his Department, to give the same commitment that we are asking the Treasury to make, and to outline how his Department will make good on this pledge. I shall explain why this is a pledge that the Government should deliver. The Minister might give a number of reasons, perhaps echoing the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), to explain why the promise given by his  ministerial colleagues during the referendum should not be treated as such. I will deal with each of the main possible reasons in turn.
First, there are those who claim that this was not a pledge at all. Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the UK Independence party, said that it was one of the mistakes that he thought the leave campaign made. The current Transport Secretary, who was also a member of the Government at the time of the referendum, has said that Vote Leave’s specific proposal was, in fact, to spend £100 million a week of the £350 million for the NHS that was originally hoped for, commenting that that would be an “aspiration” to be met. Let me tell the Transport Secretary that the poster that the Vote Leave supporters all stood next to did not say that this was an “aspiration”; it was a pledge—pure and simple. There was no qualification on the poster or on the big red bus. This statement was made, and the people who made it should be held to account for it.
Secondly, many leave campaigners deny ever using the £350 million figure. One of them said:
“I always referred to Britain’s net contribution of nearly £10 billion—some £200 million a week…rather than £350 million.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 20WH.]
It is true—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) touched on this—that the Office for National Statistics said that the £350 million figure was misleading, but the head of the Vote Leave campaign said:
“the £350 million figure is correct and we stand by it.”
Vote Leave, whose banner Government Ministers campaigned under, carried on citing the figure, as my hon. Friend said, and those Ministers must now be held to account.

Stella Creasy: I take my lead from the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who sadly does not appear to be in his Chamber. He was one of the most prominent members of the Vote Leave campaign and said that Brexit must give the NHS a boost. In my part of town, a boost to the NHS is the vital funding that we need to get our NHS back on track. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip about that point?

Chuka Umunna: I shall come on to him shortly.
A further thing that is said—again, I think this has been touched on—is that not all the people who made these pledges were members of the then Conservative Government. Perhaps that could be said of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Well, of the five current members of the Cabinet whom I mentioned, three were members of the then Government and one—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—attended the political Cabinet at the time. Yes, the Secretary of State for International Trade was sitting on the Back Benches, but countless other Ministers from outside the Cabinet at the time who are now serving more than make up for that—for instance, the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for Stockton South (James Wharton). I could go on. Those are just a few of the people who posed by those posters and next to that big red bus, and they must be held to account.
Finally, it is said—this is the crux of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe—that the commitment was given by one side in a referendum campaign, not by a Government. I am sorry but that simply will not wash. Many of those people were put up to appear in the media and to campaign on Vote Leave’s behalf precisely because they carried the authority that attaches to Government Ministers. That was why they were used. That was why they were asked to stand by that red bus, and to stand by those posters.
All those key Vote Leave campaigners, whether they were Ministers or not, were Members of this House. If our democracy is to mean anything, it must mean that Members are answerable to the electorate for their policies, and held to account in the House for the things that they say. People cannot go around the country casually promising the world and betraying people by failing to deliver, but then expect to get away with it. We will not forget; we will not let up. It was in the name of parliamentary sovereignty that those Ministers campaigned, and it is time that the House, on behalf of the people whom we are elected to represent, took back control, if we want to use that phrase, and made those Ministers answer.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is being very generous with his time.
Is this not dangerous and damaging not only to parliamentary democracy, but to the morale of workers in our national health service? I was told by the chair and chief executive of my local NHS trust, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, that they are frequently stopped by members of staff who ask, “When are we going to get the extra money?” Those people will surely be not just incredibly disappointed but doubly disappointed, given the difficulties that they are facing because the trust has a huge deficit and is struggling to provide the services that they know that patients require.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am very grateful for all the interventions that Members have made today.
Either those Ministers made this pledge to the people in the expectation of delivering on it, in which case they must now show us the money, or they made it in the sure knowledge that their promise would never be fulfilled, in which case they will never be forgiven for their betrayal of those who, in good faith, relied on them. Perhaps the Minister can tell us which it will be.

David Mowat: I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on securing the debate, and on the points that he made. Like him, I voted and campaigned for the remain side, and, like him, I accept the result. I am now part of a Government who are responsible for delivering what was democratically decided by the British people. I should say at the outset, however, that I am speaking today for the Government and not for the leave campaign. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he is taking part in the wrong debate, I apologise for that in advance.
I will, however, address some of the points that have been made about the impact of Brexit on the NHS, because valid points were made about staff morale, the   level of funding and the exchange rate. All those are variables, and I think it is good for us to spend a bit of time talking about them this evening. I will also talk about what stage I think we have reached on the pledge and the amount of money that we will no longer be giving to the European Union when we leave—although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that depends on how we leave, and on the nature of the agreement that we eventually reach.
Let us begin by agreeing on one point. The single most important thing that the NHS needs to be properly funded is a strong economy. To the extent that Brexit may have positives and negatives, that fact is relevant, but the NHS is properly funded at the moment. We have heard some stuff about budgets and all the rest of it, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the OECD’s analysis of health and social care spending in every OECD country shows that we are now above average, although that has not always been the case. We are possibly 1% lower than the best of class, including France and Germany. That figure was for 2014, and the gap is likely to have been filled because this year we gave an increase to NHS spending of three times the rate of inflation and we have pledged that the NHS budget will increase in real terms by £10 billion between now and 2021. I do not believe Brexit will make any difference to that; indeed it is a commitment and priority of this Government that it will not.
We do know, however, that there are issues in how that money is allocated within the NHS. We are broadly at the average point of the OECD, and we do and could spend that money more efficiently and effectively. We could spend more on primary care, cancer and mental health than we do, and those are Government priorities, and we hope the sustainability and transformation plan process will help to deliver that because at the moment we spend too much on acute care.
Of course we can find efficiencies, too. Agency staffing is too high and we need to address that. There is a lot we can do on procurement—Carter and new care models and all that go with that.

Stella Creasy: The Minister could also work to renegotiate the private finance initiative loans that are crippling our NHS, and not use PF2 to do that. In order to do that, we need money in the NHS to be able to renegotiate. Surely the £350 million would help get us to that place; it would help us to renegotiate our debt, get our constituents back into work and get our NHS fit for purpose in the 21st century?

David Mowat: Nobody in this House would be more pleased than I if we did not have the PFI millstone around our neck. The hon. Lady talks of renegotiation; this is real money, and these are real contracts that were signed more or less entirely by the last Labour Government. There is no magic wand that enables us to just to set those PFI contracts aside, although I wish there was; that is not how the commercial world works.

Chuka Umunna: I am sure the Minister will be aware that the £10 billion figure for increased funding he has just cited is rejected by the cross-party Select Committee on Health. It is also very well him referring to what he alleges are increases in NHS funding, but the other cuts his Government have made over the last five to six  years, in particular to local authority budgets, have put huge pressure on social care, which has led to a knock-on impact on the NHS and its funding.

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman mentions social care, and that is fair. It is funded separately to the NHS, and the budgets are separate. During the course of this Parliament the social care budget will increase in real terms. I do accept that the social care system is under pressure, but there is a massive disparity in performance in social care between councils. The top 10% of councils are about 20 to 25 times better in terms of outcomes for delayed transfers of care and so forth than the bottom 10%. There are many facets to this, therefore, but I accept the basic point. I think that, all other things being equal, Members on both sides of the House would like the NHS to have more money; let us agree on that and see how we make progress on it.
Brexit introduced a number of variables that may not have been there before. What will be the impact of Brexit on our economy? Our GDP in three or four years could be higher, but also could be lower, because of Brexit. The truth is neither the hon. Gentleman nor I knows the answer to that. There are different views on that in this House, too, although some with other views may not be here today. This is important and relevant because if the economy were to have a significant difficulty, that could impact on spending commitments.
The second variable is a very substantive one and was mentioned earlier: the exchange rate. Our exchange rate went down about 15%, principally, it would seem reasonable to say, as a consequence of Brexit. That is a good and a bad thing for the economy. Many countries in the world are trying to get their exchange rate down. I represent a constituency in the north of our country where we have a more manufacturing-based economy. Frankly, a lower exchange rate will help the economy there. That may not be the case in other parts of the country and in the City.
The exchange rate has an impact on the NHS. In fact, it has two impacts. As the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned, it will be more expensive to import products such as scanners and, potentially, to import drugs. She asked what the figure was, but I cannot give her an exact figure. My understanding is that it is considerably less than 5% of the total NHS expenditure of about £100 billion. Nevertheless, this is a relevant factor and it makes a difference.
The other impact of the exchange rate, which the hon. Lady did not mention, is that it will affect the attractiveness to overseas workers of the UK economy in general and the NHS in particular. If someone comes in from the EU to work in our economy and the value of the pound is 15% lower than it was a year ago, they will be earning 15% less in their home currency. That will have an impact on the margin in relation to staffing, and that is an issue that we need to manage.
The third variable is the one that we have spent so much time talking about—namely, the payment that we make to the EU. I am not going to get bogged down in the numbers, but I believe that we pay the EU about £20 billion a year, of which we get roughly £10 billion back. Leaving the EU would therefore create a bonus. The hon. Member for Streatham mentioned a letter.  Even if that bonus were to materialise, as I expect it to, it will not happen until after we have left the EU, so his writing a letter to the Chancellor now strikes me as somewhat symbolic.

Chuka Umunna: To be absolutely clear to the Minister, the ask was that the Chancellor should set out the path for achieving this payment after we have left. I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, given his view that the pledge to make a payment to the NHS was made not by the Government but by the campaign, would he say that it was wrong for people to go around giving the impression that the Government would dish out that money? Secondly, for the record, is he saying that this Government will not meet that pledge?

David Mowat: Just for the record, I am not saying that this Government will not meet it. All I can say is that this Government have yet to decide how they will spend any bonus that comes from any rebate we get. This will all depend on the precise negotiations that take place and the precise type of exit that we make from the EU. Nobody in this Chamber knows the answers to those questions. For example, we could get a Norwegian-type deal that could entail paying money to the EU. I am not a member of the Department for Exiting the European Union and I do not know where the current thinking is on that, but this is of course a variable.

Chuka Umunna: Given what the Minister is saying, does he believe that it was wrong to go around giving people the impression that all they needed to do was vote to leave the European Union in order for £350 million a week to be dished out to the NHS?

David Mowat: Had I been writing something on the side of the bus, and had I been campaigning on that cause in the referendum, I might have been more circumspect. I might have said that £350 million could become available and could be spent on whatever the Government’s priorities were, one of which was very likely to be the NHS. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Stewart Jackson: I regret that I seem to have stumbled into a sort of elongated primal scream therapy session involving refighting last June’s referendum. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) would have a more persuasive and cogent argument if he saw the other side of the equation. Yes, EU workers have a massive impact on and are committed to the NHS, but unrestricted EU migration over a number of years has put massive strains on the delivery of our health services. He has never conceded that point.

Chuka Umunna: That is not what I am talking about.

David Mowat: I want to make some progress in the debate, although I understand that I have until 7.30.
We have mentioned the payments to the EU, and there is also the point about staff. Another point that has not been mentioned—I shall mention it for completeness—is that there will be an impact on EU institutions. For example, the European Medicines Agency is located in London, which is of benefit to our pharmaceuticals  industry. Where it ends up should be an issue for the people negotiating this deal, because of the potential impact involved. From my point of view, we talk too often about the conditions in relation to the EU for the City of London and passporting and all that goes with it, but not enough about other world-class industries, one of which is pharmaceuticals. I hope that those responsible will listen to that.
We have talked about the economy, which is a big variable. To be frank, neither I nor the hon. Member for Streatham knows whether the economy will be better or worse as consequence of leaving the EU, but it is true that the 15% fall in the value of the pound is helping manufacturing firms in the north and will have an effect on GDP, but it will also have some effect on imports of, for example, scanners, accelerators and drugs.
The NHS is hugely reliant on staff from the EU. Some 58,000 people from EU countries work in the NHS, and another 90,000 work in social care. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s position that we understand that massive contribution and know that it is important to our NHS that it continues. The Secretary of State said exactly that to the Health Committee and the Prime Minister has said that she hopes and expects citizens from the EU to stay in our vital services. I would like—perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the group he is speaking for today can help with this—some of our EU colleagues and friends to make a similar commitment about people from this country who are working in EU countries, because that has not yet happened.

Chuka Umunna: I speak for my constituents above all others whenever I speak on such issues in this House. On that specific point, will the Minister explain why the Government do not simply guarantee the right to stay of EU citizens working in our health service? I understand the demand for the reciprocal right to be given to UK citizens living in other EU countries, but they should not be used as a bargaining chip. When the Immigration Minister appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, he admitted that we do not know where most of the EU citizens are in this country or who they are, so if we were not to deliver on the promise to guarantee them the right to stay we would have no way of removing them.

David Mowat: It is not for me to make that specific guarantee. The Prime Minister clearly said that she hopes and expects them to remain. It is disappointing that a similarly strong statement has not been made by any Head of State in any other European country.
It is also right that we do more to train more of our own nurses and doctors—not because we need to replace people from the EU, but because it is the right thing to do. We should try to become self-sufficient in these matters, and that will happen.
We have knocked around this point quite a lot during the debate and have talked about variables such as the exchange rate, GDP and the EU bonus or payment that we will get, but there is one thing that is not a variable and it is probably the single most important constant: the extent to which this Government give priority to the health service in their spending commitments. That constant is absolutely clear. The previous Prime Minister treated the NHS as his No. 1 commitment, as does the current Prime Minister. Many of the points we have discussed this evening are things that should properly form part of the negotiation that we are going to have after we trigger article 50, as we hope to do by the end of March, and I am certain that that will be the case. What is not negotiable is that our commitments to NHS funding and social care funding are unmoved by any of these things; this is the No. 1 priority for this Government.

Stewart Jackson: Is it not the case that in the future dispensation after Brexit we might have a fairer system of recruitment and retention of NHS staff? In all our constituencies, we have staff from outside the EU—my constituency has Nigerian, Ghanaian and, in particular, Filipino nursing staff—who have hitherto been discriminated against inadvertently vis-à-vis those from the European Union, and we will have a much fairer system in reaching out and getting the brightest and best to work in our NHS in the future.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend uses the word “fairer”, and of course we do have staff from other parts of the world. I will be honest and say that part of me has difficulty with this country taking large numbers of doctors and nurses from places such as Nigeria and others parts of Africa that need them more than we do. So it is right that we try to train more of the people that we need in these vital public services, but it is also right that we make it absolutely clear how important the people who currently work in our NHS and in social care are—those from the EU and from outside it, as my hon. Friend reminded us. That is important.
I make the point again, because I will not go on until 7.30 pm, that the NHS is this Government’s No.1 spending priority and it will continue to be so.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.